Future Carrier (Including Costs) [Archive] - Page 25

WE Branch Fanatic

16th Oct 2020, 11:17

https://twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1316297261245177857

Her first NATO (and national) mission - one of many. Peace through strength.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkNZflBX0AEbNqd?format=jpg&name=360x360

The value of a larger ship and a larger deck is obvious from this picture.

https://twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1316649089824690176

Look at the way it lands so smoothly compared with Sea Harrier and Harrier GR7/9. In Sea Harrier Over The Falklands, Sharkey Ward said he hoped that the successor to the Sea Harrier would be easier to land. Well - here it is, with fifth generation avionics and LO. Both air defence (controlled by a shipborne Freddy) and attack have been part of this exercise.

In future the number of F-35B (are we officially calling it the Lightning?) will increase, operated by the joint RN/RAF force (recent window licking over this has been seen - from Peter 'Ignore The Science' Hitchens, and with be supported by Crowsnest. The air to air capability will hopefully be enhanced by Meteor. With The US looking to build light fleet carriers based on the America class LHD, so maybe it will be getting some sort of anti ship weapon integrated?

However, it is not all about the jets.

https://twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1315739242635689985

The Pingers contribute to task group ASW capabilities and work with the frigates and their helicopters, and the Junglies do their stuff. The Junglies can relieve the Pingers of much SAR/VERTREP/HDS tasking. Co-ordinated ASW was part of this exercise.

WE Branch Fanatic

20th Oct 2020, 13:17

During the excitement of posting the above, I forgot to include this Twitter update from 07 Oct:

https://twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1313900149454917633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembe d%7Ctwterm%5E1313900149454917633%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3%2Ccontaine rclick_0&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.m in.html1313900149454917633

idle bystander

21st Oct 2020, 10:06

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. What has the "silent service" come to, to spout cr*p like that. Too much "light (the) blue (touchpaper)" influence, perhaps?

WE Branch Fanatic

24th Oct 2020, 08:50

Are you talking about the use of Twitter? Yes I have my doubts too, but remember it does reach people, and the average person has a shorter attention span that the average Goldfish. A fuller explanation would be that the intercept was controlled by HMS Defender - in other words the destroyer is actively involved in carrier based air defence. Likewise HMS Kent could track a submarine but to localise and prosecute you need helicopters with dipping sonar.

As for 'silent service' - well that worked well in the past....... Apart from making the RN more vulnerable to cuts and political interference, that is. A poorly articulated case for new carriers in the sixties, based on an out of area role instead of NATO (it was the need for ASW and supporting air defence in the Atlantic that led to the Invincible class/Sea Harrier/ASW and AEW Sea Kings), then not being willing to flag up the role of the Sea Harrier throughout the nineties and beyond, and then being at risk of deeper cuts and suffering political interference due to the reasons for a number of things being the way they were not being adequately articulated, that is.

ORAC

13th Nov 2020, 07:32

Asturias56

13th Nov 2020, 07:53

The Royal Navy’s £6.4 billion aircraft carriers face only being able to operate in a limited way due to Government indecision, penny pinching and a lack of support vessels, MPs have warned. The Commons public spending watchdog accused ministers of a “debilitating lack of clarity” about what they want the carriers – HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales – to achieve. Problems with the ships’ Crowsnest radar system will leave them with “less protection than planned”, there is a lack of support vessels to supply the carriers, and uncertainty on how many Lightning II jets will now be needed.

The Public Accounts Committee warned that the Ministry of Defence’s “failure to fund several key supporting capabilities will restrict how it can use the carriers for many years”. The MoD said getting the carrier strike group ready was a “complex challenge” but “we remain committed to investing in this capability”.

Highlighting problems with the carrier strike programme, the cross-party committee said: “The new Crowsnest radar system has been delayed by 18 months because of poor contractor performance and inadequate departmental oversight. “The department also lacks the support ships it needs to supply the carriers and has not yet developed a long-term solution to move people and goods to and from a carrier group.” The MPs said: “There remains a disturbing lack of clarity about the costs associated with purchasing and supporting the Lightning II jets, as well as about how many more the department will need or can afford in the future.”

Further problems could be caused by the integrated review of defence and foreign policy now coming ahead of the delayed multi-year Whitehall spending settlement.

Committee chairwoman Meg Hillier said: “As things stand the UK has two world-class aircraft carriers with limited capability because the wider debate about the UK’s strategic defence capability – and funding – has been repeatedly delayed. This debilitating lack of clarity threatens our national defences yet it’s not likely to be resolved when the strategic defence review and the comprehensive spending review look likely to be out of step with each other once again. The MoD and the nation it’s responsible for defending cannot afford for this rare beacon of success, in delivering the two carriers, to descend into yet another failure to deliver defence capability. The MoD must recognise that is a real risk, a real risk to a vital part of our national defences, and it must demonstrate now a clear plan to capitalise on the massive investment the UK has already made – and deliver Carrier Strike.”

Tn MoD spokesman said the committee and the National Audit Office had recognised that “considerable progress” had been made since their last reports in 2017. “Carrier strike is a complex challenge which relies on a mix of capabilities and platforms. We remain committed to investing in this capability,” the spokesman said. “Despite the disruptions of Covid-19, the carrier strike group is on track for its first operational deployment in 2021.”

FODPlod

13th Nov 2020, 11:47

...The MoD said getting the carrier strike group ready was a “complex challenge” but “we remain committed to investing in this capability”...
The imprudent ten-year gap in RN carrier capability, including the squandering of so much hard-won corporate knowledge, expertise and experience, has a lot to answer for.

tucumseh

13th Nov 2020, 12:11

POLITICO: CARRIERS SHOT DOWN

Big questions remain about the capabilities of two new aircraft carriers — despite concerns being raised two years ago, the public accounts committee reports (https://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/national/18868097.aircraft-carriers-marred-debilitating-lack-clarity-purpose---mps/) this morning.

The PAC said there had been “little discernible progress” on issues it raised in 2018.

For the Crowsnest delay, make that a repeat of concerns raised 26 years ago! It's what happens when a Minister hands the job to a company who didn't bid, and they're taken over by a company who withdrew their bid because it was all too difficult. And then you ditch corporate memory, and repeat...

Easy Street

13th Nov 2020, 12:38

The imprudent ten-year gap in RN carrier capability, including the squandering of so much hard-won corporate knowledge, expertise and experience, has a lot to answer for.

The mismatch between the MOD’s budget and its desired outputs is the unavoidable issue behind this and most of the other procurement issues, and no amount of carrier expertise is going to fix that.

Asturias56

13th Nov 2020, 13:11

Not_a_boffin

13th Nov 2020, 13:43

The problem is also one flagged many times on here - lack of enough support vessels to cover the Carriers AND the work they currently do

Quite how they haven't fixed "moving goods on and off the carriers" is one to marvel although - I'd assumed they'd buy a few Osprey's...............

If only those who "flagged" it actually understood what they were talking about......

As for moving goods on and off the carriers - that's a bit of a red herring. There is an existing interim solution which has been perfectly adequate and could be augmented with a couple of Chinooks if required. However, people are conflating this (properly called Maritime Intra Theatre Lift - MITL - a programme that has been in concept phase since the late noughties) with Carrier On-Board Delivery (something we've not had since the demise of the Gannet COD birds in the late 70s) and getting over-excited about it.

Crowsnest is now deep in its testing phase and should deliver, albeit late. The Fleet Solid Support ship competition looks like it'll restart in the new year and should deliver towards the end of the decade (assuming they can avoid too much politicking). The big one is the F35 (and associated squadron) numbers - for which one hopes the IR will recognise that 9 and 4 squadrons (inc OEUs etc) is too small a force structure in a more competitive era.

steamchicken

13th Nov 2020, 14:40

The NAO is a slightly...strange organization, as its brief is, well, auditing, on the presumption that people will spend too much public money if left unattended. The problem with this is that it encounters something like this, where the fundamental problem is that the government needs to crack on and buy important parts of the capability, and it doesn't really have either a remit or a language to say so. The further problem is that if it did, it would be a sort of National Is The Government Doing Stuff Office, and that's really what parliament is meant to do.

Asturias56

13th Nov 2020, 16:07

"on the presumption that people will spend too much public money if left unattended. "

Now there's someone whose got it right - pork barrels, bridges to nowhere, jobs for mates, contracts for your constituency. its the same the whole world over

WE Branch Fanatic

17th Nov 2020, 08:01

Here is a link to an article about the role of escort carriers and their aircraft during the Arctic Convoys. (https://racmp.co.uk/content/resources/FAA.pdf)

Typically they would carry fighters for air defence, protecting the convoy or other force beyond the range of the ships' guns, and Swordfish for an anti U boat role, working with long range aircraft and frigates and destroyers with ASDIC and weapons like Hedgehog or Squid. In the Atlantic the air threat was not from Stukas and the like, but from long range aircraft that could attack shipping and doing reece for the U boats. The escort carrier was indispensable in protecting both Atlantic and Arctic Convoys. Did they get enough publicity post war?

The need to protect shipping and naval forces with organic fighters and multiple ASW helicopters saved RN carrier aviation, and led to the Invincible with Sea Kings for ASW and Sea Harriers for dealing with Soviet Naval Aviation aircraft such as Bears. The larger US carriers could perform the same roles.

Why can people not accept our carriers will be able to provide defence for crisis response shipping or amphibious forces, with F-35B Lightning and Merlin HM2? In any operation with a major need for AAW or ASW capabilities, then you need a carrier.

When is NATO doing another Exercise Deep Blue? This time we can provide not only the flagship, ASW helicopters, frigates, and an SSN, but we will be able to intercept simulated hostile aircraft.

Asturias56

17th Nov 2020, 13:05

"Why can people not accept our carriers will be able to provide defence for crisis response shipping or amphibious forces, with F-35B Lightning and Merlin HM2? In any operation with a major need for AAW or ASW capabilities, then you need a carrier."

No-one is arguing about that - what the nay-sayers believe is that any such operation is very very unlikely and if it did brew up then the UK carriers wouldn't be a major contribution - or not for long.

It's 75 years since WW2 and we have had a single police action that required UK carriers - that's a very expensive insurance policy - especially when its bought at the cost of reducing the flexibility to deploy an ever decreasing number of escorts elsewhere across the globe.

Not_a_boffin

17th Nov 2020, 13:54

It's 75 years since WW2 and we have had a single police action that required UK carriers - that's a very expensive insurance policy - especially when its bought at the cost of reducing the flexibility to deploy an ever decreasing number of escorts elsewhere across the globe.

Significantly more than one action.
Inexpensive compared to others - anyone who understands where the money goes is pretty clear the carriers are a long way from the biggest pot.
Once again, complete lack of understanding of "escorts" vs task group. What pray, are we deploying these escorts around the globe to escort? They do "stuff". Is that "stuff" more or less effective than a task group?

Asturias56

17th Nov 2020, 15:26

Significantly more than one action.
Inexpensive compared to others - anyone who understands where the money goes is pretty clear the carriers are a long way from the biggest pot.
Once again, complete lack of understanding of "escorts" vs task group. What pray, are we deploying these escorts around the globe to escort? They do "stuff". Is that "stuff" more or less effective than a task group?

Boffin - as we all know and the RN are happy to keep telling us all RN and RFA vessels not in overhaul or training are deployed on a wide variety of missions in an enormous variety of locations.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations currently lists the areas and https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news lists latest news which covers vessels in Arctic, S Georgia, the West Indies, the Gulf, the Med , E Scotland.......................

These are almost all single ship deployments and presumably are considered important to the national security no?

The RN has no spare ships sitting around - therefore if you form a Carrier Task Force with 2 x T45's, 2 x T23's and 2 RFA's those vessels are no longer available to cover the areas were they are currently deployed - you have a great deal of force , but you only have it in one location. Those escorts are protecting a carrier in the N Atlantic - they can't be in the Gulf at the same time, nor in the Med... the argument about the RN carriers is not that they're not nice to have but that in a Navy which was stretched to breaking point before their arrival something which we currently feel is necessary has to give to protect them.

Imagegear

17th Nov 2020, 15:45

I am sure that if things kick off in the Far East, the Europeans and the UK will need all hands to the pumps to maintain security while the big cat is away away, else the rats will want to play.

Just sayin'

IG

Not_a_boffin

17th Nov 2020, 16:42

Boffin - as we all know and the RN are happy to keep telling us all RN and RFA vessels not in overhaul or training are deployed on a wide variety of missions in an enormous variety of locations.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations currently lists the areas and https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news lists latest news which covers vessels in Arctic, S Georgia, the West Indies, the Gulf, the Med , E Scotland.......................

These are almost all single ship deployments and presumably are considered important to the national security no?

The RN has no spare ships sitting around - therefore if you form a Carrier Task Force with 2 x T45's, 2 x T23's and 2 RFA's those vessels are no longer available to cover the areas were they are currently deployed - you have a great deal of force , but you only have it in one location. Those escorts are protecting a carrier in the N Atlantic - they can't be in the Gulf at the same time, nor in the Med... the argument about the RN carriers is not that they're not nice to have but that in a Navy which was stretched to breaking point before their arrival something which we currently feel is necessary has to give to protect them.

Arctic - HMS Lancaster
S Georgia - HMS Forth (long-term deployment)
Med - HMS Trent
Gulf - HMS Montrose (long-term deployment)
Caribbean - RFA Argus

Of those, only two might be considered TG ships. There are also another T23 and a T45 in the Med off to support Albion & Lyme Bay on LRG. All done while 2 T45 and 5 T23 are in long refits / conversions (something that is a one off due to convergence of two programmes and will get a bit better). Just after a month long CSG exercise, which was just after another couple of Arctic deployments. It's definitely not easy, but it demonstrably possible.

The other thing about single ship deployments is that you can choose whether or not to do them permanently or periodically. It's called flexibility.

WE Branch Fanatic

17th Nov 2020, 21:28

I was going to reply to A56, and point out that those 75 years have included carrier operations as part of the Cold War from 1945 until 1992(?), Korea, Malaya, Suez, the Borneo Confrontation, Middle East and African entanglements, deterring an invasion of Belize in 1972, Gulf War related activities, Bosnia, Kosovo, keeping Saddam in his box, Sierra Leone, and renewed NATO naval activities.

I was going to point out that naval forces, like all forces, do not just cease to have a useful role when not on live operations. They deter, reassure, and influence. A carrier group will often do that in the same way that amphibious forces exercised in the Baltic and near Arctic waters earlier this year, and now they are in the Mediterranean. Likewise carriers will be a part of NATO operations and exercises.

I was going to point out that a task group can cover a large area, and the ships in it will often be detached for other things - just as ships being detached from the main task group in the Falklands to conduct naval gunfire support, support Special Forces, or do localised ASW with a couple of frigates and ASW Sea Kings from the carriers.

Instead, I will just post something you might find informative:

British Uses of Aircraft Carriers and Amphibious Ships: 1945 - 2010 (https://www.kcl.ac.uk/dsd/assets/corbettpaper9.pdf)

Asturias56

18th Nov 2020, 07:11

Boffin - I agree they will have to change their priorities - otherwise they can't support the carriers. My point is that the roles which will be downgraded are also critical to the national defence. So you protect the carriers and can exercise a great deal of power over a small area or you can disperse the escorts and cover more areas of concern........ The argument between us is which is more important .

WEBF - A carrier force operating in the N Atlantic cannot "deter, reassure, and influence" actions in the Gulf today, tomorrow or even next month - sure they look good but if Iran snaffles anther UK tanker in the Straits of Hormuz tomorrow what is an RN carrier group several thousand miles away going to do? Yes you can send the Carrier Group to the Gulf - but a bit like the Russian Navy on its way to Tsushima it takes along time and they have a lot of time to be ready for you.

This argument has raged over 14 years 300 pages and TBH we''re nowhere near agreeing

The naysayers argument is summed up in post #5 by Occasional Aviator-

"Not meaning to troll, but what capability will CVF/JSF Really give us? As I understand it, we are only ordering 2. Now, the Yanks can afford to have a carrier battle group on station permanently covering pretty much every likely trouble spot, but with only one to position we will either have to be prescient or we will be projecting our air power at fast walking pace"

Not_a_boffin

18th Nov 2020, 08:09

Asturias56

18th Nov 2020, 11:14

Not_a_boffin

18th Nov 2020, 11:58

Is that a double negative? I understand that we (or rather HMG) have to choose - that means changing the current list of priorities

Protecting the Carriers will be considered more important than some of the tasks currently carried out by the RN - we gain a concentrated battle force at the cost of a presence (s) somewhere else - agreed?

The single ship deployment examples you quoted as national security priorities were all filled by ships that would not normally be on the TG deployment. You're now trying to give that a stiff ignoring and invent a list of non-specified tasks that would hypothetically be backheeled to allow a CSG deployment.

Asturias56

18th Nov 2020, 12:29

Boffin

I didn't post a full list of deployments but you know we have at least one escort, a tanker and an RFA support vessel in the Gulf normally for example.......

I can't understand why you won't admit the point that a Carrier Group means we're doing less elsewhere. I agree that a CG is a strong force which we haven't had for a decade - but it comes at an operational cost.

The question is is it worth it - and on that we clearly differ - no doubt time will tell.

Not_a_boffin

18th Nov 2020, 12:56

Boffin

I didn't post a full list of deployments but you know we have at least one escort, a tanker and an RFA support vessel in the Gulf normally for example.......

That'll be HMS Montrose - noted as long-term deployment out there. Plus one Bay class and 3-4MCMV, none of which are task group ships. Tanker less critical now we have HMS Jufair. Wave Ruler was out there for six months earlier in the year, one of six and a half tankers. Plus we currently have a Littoral Response Group (two amphibs and two escorts joining) in the Med.

I can't understand why you won't admit the point that a Carrier Group means we're doing less elsewhere. I agree that a CG is a strong force which we haven't had for a decade - but it comes at an operational cost. Because the "evidence" appears to be solely based on your opinion.

I repeat - if only those who claim to have "flagged" this understood what they were talking about.

WE Branch Fanatic

20th Nov 2020, 07:45

The Future Navy concept is based around five areas of operational output

Continuous At Sea Deterrence
Forward Presence
North Atlantic
Carrier Strike
Future Commando/Amphibious Force

These overlap of course - in particular the last three. The carriers will routinely carry Royal Marines and can be used as an LPH, and the carriers are suited to Atlantic operations and providing ASW and air defence for a task group or crisis response shipping. On that note:

https://twitter.com/smrmoorhouse/status/1329078208600236039

Asturias56

20th Nov 2020, 09:38

ORAC posted this on the Strategic Review thread this morning:-

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/n...pree-7p9knnpvm (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/navy-is-big-winner-in-johnsons-16bn-defence-spending-spree-7p9knnpvm)

Navy is big winner in Johnson’s £16bn defence spending spree

......The biggest winner will be the Royal Navy after the prime minister set out plans for the service to take on a bigger role. He confirmed that Britain will get eight Type-26 frigates, sophisticated anti-submarine ships, as well as five Type-31 frigates, which are cheaper all-purpose warships. New fleet support ships to carry food and ammunition in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will also be built, along with multi-role research vessels. The various projects confirmed will be a boon to shipbuilders and are expected to support up to 10,000 jobs.

The blueprint will be a boost to the Union too as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have a significant proportion of the UK’s shipyards and linked industries. The government said that the blueprint would secure “jobs, prosperity, security and the Union”.

Mr Johnson said that the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth would be launched on its first carrier strike force operation next year, and will sail to the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and east Asia. HMS Prince of Wales is up to 18 months behind in its timetable. In a sign that Britain will seek to boost international co-operation, Australian and Canadian personnel and assets are expected to be invited to operate from one of the carriers. Proposals are being considered for one of the carriers to be permanently stationed either in the Middle East or further east in the southern hemisphere, it is understood. A military source said that the focus on the Royal Navy was “a paradigm shift”, adding: “Boris Johnson has refocused defence to its historic maritime axis.”.....

SLXOwft

20th Nov 2020, 13:00

NavalNews has been doing some digging on the Type 32.

the real surprise in today’s announcement is the mention for the first time of the “Type 32”. Early rumors associated the term with an export variant of Type 31, T4X (Type 45 destroyer replacement), the Littoral Strike Ship (https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/02/uk-mod-considering-new-littoral-strike-ships-for-the-royal-navy/) project (which appears to be abandoned) or even a typo. Naval News learned from a reliable UK source that this is in fact some sort of “pre program” put in place for budgetary reasons in anticipation of a future potential “Type 31 Batch 2”. The source added that this potential “Type 31 Batch 2” may not necessarily be based on the Type 31 design. Is this what happened to the illusory T31s in the 'at least' five?

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/11/uk-to-restore-royal-navy-to-europes-most-powerful-maritime-force/

One asumes if there are to be extra escort vessels this means extra helicopters or RPVs to extend their sensor and weapons range. Also will need to magic up find crews and aircrews from somewhere,

Regarding a base port for a CV, HMG has invested a modest £23.8 million to "triple the size of its base" at Duqm, Oman - the port even has a drydock which could take QNLZ or POW. Granted, it is rather close to Iran.

Still, I am old fashioned and consider the RN to have only 2/3s of a carrier capability. So permanently basing one East of Suez seems a tad over ambitious. They then also have to address airgroup numbers as well if the other is to be operable from the UK when one is not in refit or on workup. There was a reason for planning to keep two old carriers in service as well if CVA-01 and 02 had actually been built.

If Singapore will HMS Simbang (RNAS Sembawang) be resurrected for shore support of aircraft? If Oman where, RAFO Masirah is close to Duqm but RAFO Adam might make more sense

WE Branch Fanatic

20th Nov 2020, 18:38

We are not going to permanently base a carrier in Oman or Singapore. There is talk of forward basing an asset in Singapore, probably an OPV, and some media types have jumped to wild conclusions. Neither Canada or Australia currently operate V/STOL aircraft, however there is an agreement within NATO and some non NATO partners to allow for naval helicopter interoperability.

Do you think there there is any significance in the map in the Twitter update above?

Will the build up of the RN/RAF F-35B force be speeded up?

Will there be an increase in Merlin HM2 numbers?

Following on from that, you may be interested in this transcript of a NATO conference in 1956 (https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/null/2/5/2507/AC_100-VR_9_FRE.pdf). Vice Admiral Clifford RN notes that the key development in ASW aircraft was the helicopter with dipping sonar and homing torpedoes, which were carrier based, and a few years later frigate/destroyer based aircraft such as the Wasp.

I remember seeing a promotional film from the seventies that stated that a frigate and her Wasp could work in conjunction with a Sea King (from a carrier or larger RFA). Today the same could be said for frigates and destroyers operating Wildcat - they could work in conjunction with dipping Merlins. The carrier controls all task group aircraft, and contributes to the effectiveness of other units, like the potential use of data from F-35B to cue ships' weapons.

The limitations of the carriers the RN back then were understood, which is why the new carriers were intended to be larger. However, instead of building a strong case built around convoy defence in the Atlantic, fending off mass submarine attacks and long range aircraft in the GIUK gap, and amphibious operations as part of NATO, the case for new carriers was vague and based on a possible Far East crisis. As such it could be dismantled. Forgetting that whilst the nature of future crises is hard to predict, our national interests, such as securing the Atlantic Sea Lines of Communication will not.

We can expect carrier based task groups to perform these exercises as part of NATO, naval operations that are the peacetime conjugate of war. We can also expect them to contribute to humanitarian aid and disaster relief, for which a large deck and multiple helicopters can get aid where it is needed, like the current role being played by RFA Argus, operating three Merlin HC4 and a Wildcat HM2 as well as lilypadding American helicopters.

WE Branch Fanatic

26th Nov 2020, 08:21

I was expecting there to be a NATO exercise this year that involved simulating a transatlantic convoy, but I must have missed it when it took place in February. Mea culpa!

USS Eisenhower Leads Exercise To Clear Atlantic Shipping Lanes (https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/uss-eisenhower-leads-exercise-to-clear-atlantic-shipping-lanes/)

PENTAGON: Since its surprise deployment last week, the USS Eisenhower has been clearing a path for cargo ships full of Army equipment bound for major ground exercise in Europe, the first drill simulating a contested crossing of the Atlantic since 1986, Navy officials say.

The Ike, along with an unidentified submarine sweeping the depths of the ocean for unexpected Russian guests, is participating in an exercise that will throw simulated attacks at the convoy to stress test how prepared the Navy is to punch its way across the Atlantic. The path is being cleared for the roll-on/roll-off USNS Benavidez, along with US-flagged merchant vessels MV Resolve and MV Patriot, which departed Beaumont, Texas Feb. 24 to deliver equipment to the US Army DEFENDER 20 exercise in Europe (https://breakingdefense.com/2019/12/from-the-baltic-to-black-seas-defender-exercise-goes-big-with-a-big-price-tag/). The ships are carrying gear for the 1st Armored Division, including Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and other heavy armor.

“The Atlantic has changed dramatically over the last 20 years,” 2nd Fleet’s director of operations, Cmdr. Troy Denison told reporters Friday. “It’s not what it used to be. We treat it as contested waters now.”

I look forward to seeing our carriers taking part in this sort of exercise, or a NATO amphibious exercise.

SLXOwft

26th Nov 2020, 17:21

MoD Minister of State Jeremy Quin replied to a written question from Julian Lewis on Tuesday (24NOV2020)

On current plans, the out-of-service dates for HMS ALBION and HMS BULWARK will remain 2033 and 2034 respectively.
Source: questions-statements.parliament.uk

We will see if the same is true after the delayed review. Is the MoD being 'economical with the actualités' in responding to the chair of the Intelligence and Security committee?

Not_a_boffin

26th Nov 2020, 17:26

The important part will be the capability beyond those two - in other words are replacements in the long-term shipbuilding programme? I suspect not.

SLXOwft

26th Nov 2020, 18:52

The important part will be the capability beyond those two - in other words are replacements in the long-term shipbuilding programme? I suspect not.

And is dependent on agreeing there will be a need to deliver an actually amphibious force. (i.e. not just by helicopter / tiltrotor) of reasonable size. If they are replaced will the lesson that Al Faw "demonstrated the utility of hovercraft in amphibious landings." be implemented with an LCAC-100 size ACV for them to carry? Playing fantasy fleets, the real need would be for two and preferably three Bougainville type LHAs but as the cost would be close to that for another two of our medium size aircraft carriers it's not going to happen. The running costs of the Albion class is its Achilles Heel and will have to be addressed if there is a replacement. Call me a fool but two landing spots and no hangar doesn't make sense to me - a San Antonio style ship would have made much more sense but @6 times the cost of an Albion not in the UK's reach. Did they not think much beyond a Fearless-alike?

ORAC

1st Dec 2020, 06:47

https://twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1333439274834944001?s=21

WE Branch Fanatic

1st Dec 2020, 18:14

SLXOwft

I think the big thing is the commitment to maintaining an amphibious capability. A number of NATO countries have significant amphibious capabilities, in the same way that France, Italy, and Spain also have carriers.

HMS Albion has been working with the Italian ITS (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/november/30/20201130-albion-italians)Giuseppe (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/november/30/20201130-albion-italians) Garibaldi - and her Harriers. (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/november/30/20201130-albion-italians)

The Garibaldi is home to AV-8B jump jets (the US-built version of the Harrier) which tested their ability to evade the British defences during an air defence exercise.

The carrier group – completed by frigate ITS Carlo Bergamini and tanker Stromboli – conducted combined training with Albion and Lyme Bay, from basic communications through to manoeuvring in close proximity, some helicopter ‘cross-decking’ and an anti-submarine exercise, before a ceremonial sail past prior as the two allies went their separate way

Does the Italian Navy have carrierborne ASW helicopters?

ORAC

Will the RN be getting a manpower uplift - as Dodgy Dave promised in 2015 and then reneged on?

Meanwhile, in the Atlantic theatre:

Another major NATO ASW exercise took image in the Atlantic not so long ago (https://news.usni.org/2020/09/16/navy-sharpening-anti-submarine-warfare-skills-in-black-widow-exercise). The USS Wasp was the big deck with two squadrons of MH-60R operating from her deck.

While the exercise includes systems testing, Cardle pointed out that Black Widow also allows the Navy to do command and control testing now that Waters has platforms under his purview that would typically fall under a carrier strike group.

“Part of Black Widow and what makes it different . . . is we are not only testing new capabilities — which means the actual gadgets, devices, sensors, those types of things — along with tactics, techniques and procedures that undersea warfare development center is trying to test,” Caudle said. “But we’re also testing that command and control structure and making sure that Jim Waters can actually bring those forces to bear on the scenario under the command of Admiral Lewis.”

The exercise features one Los Angeles-class submarine, one Virginia-class submarine, destroyers USS McFaul (DDG-74) and USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) and amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD-1), according to the service.

Helicopters from the “Grandmasters” Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 46, the “Proud Warriors” of HSM 72 and aircraft assigned to Patrol and Reconnaissance Wing (CPRW) 11 are also participating.

Looking ahead:

Planning is underway for another transatlantic reinforcement exercise nest year. (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/november/30/20201130-nato-usa)

Having achieved initial operational capability in September 2020 and programmed to reach full operational capability (FOC) at the end of 2021, JFC Norfolk is taking on a core-coordinating role in assuring the security of the Strategic Lines of Communication across the Euro-Atlantic area, through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and into the Arctic.

---BREAK---

Exercise Steadfast Defender (STDE21) will be a significant milestone in achieving FOC, demonstrating JFC Norfolk’s competence and readiness to fulfil its roles and responsibilities.

As a SHAPE-sponsored operational and tactical level live exercise, STDE21 will train and evaluate a wide range of NATO and national force elements. Focused on the reinforcement of continental Europe from North America, NATO will exercise its ability to secure the Strategic Lines of Communication which link our continents.

Atlantic ASW and AAW depend on carrier centred task groups. Before you ask - yes, I have reposted this to fix links and add quotes.

SLXOwft

10th Dec 2020, 16:30

The Telegraph reported recently that as part of £1bn defence 'savings' £2 million will be saved by not sending HMS Prince of Wales to America next year for essential training as part of the Westlant Exercise.

Instead similar training will now take place in British waters.

Also "Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, has signed off on the Royal Naval Reservists being stood down until April next year in a bid to save £7.5 million."

Amusingly the version of the report I have seen (I refuse to add to the Barclay brother's coffers) states that the E-3D force will be reduced to 3 - I thought it already effectively was 3 - and that they will all be out of service before the first Wedgetail arrrives leading to yet another capability holiday.:ugh:

Lordflasheart

10th Dec 2020, 18:04

..The Telegraph reported recently that as part of £1bn defence 'savings' £2 million will be saved by not sending HMS Prince of Wales to America next year for essential training as part of the Westlant Exercise.

They'll need all of that saving to repair the damage caused by the engine room leak while tied up in Pompey in October .....

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/royal-navy-aircraft-carrier-undergoing-repairs-after-suffering-leak-39836145.html

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/one-of-the-reasons-the-royal-navy-needs-two-aircraft-carriers-a-setback-for-hms-prince-of-wales/

In October .....? ... I didn't see this mentioned previous. Do I need to make more effort to keep up ?

Instead similar training will now take place in British waters

Notice to Mariners - British Waters will only become available for training after they've been pumped out of the POW.

LFH
...

Asturias56

11th Dec 2020, 09:04

ORAC posted a link in the F-35 thread - here are the interesting bits for this thread

https://www.defensenews.com/global/e...lls-lawmakers/ (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/12/09/british-f-35-buy-is-still-a-moving-target-defense-ministry-tells-lawmakers/)

LONDON – British Ministry of Defence officials have confirmed the military will buy more than the 48 F-35B combat jets already on order, but they were reluctant to be drawn on exactly when and how many aircraft may eventually be involved when they gave evidence to the parliamentary Defence committee Dec 8.

“We know we need to increase the number of F-35Bs to support the [Royal Navy] carrier through to its out-of-service date. The precise number will dependent a bit on the work we do and the investment we are making on the FCAS,” he said, referring to the UK-led Tempest program. “We expect to make a definitive judgement around the total future fleet in the 2025 timeframe,” Knighton added.

Britain originally committed to buy 138 of the Lockheed Martin short take-off vertical landing combat jets to equip a joint force of Royal Navy/Royal Air Force aircraft. The F-35Bs are principally scheduled to equip two new 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers. Knighton said the final number could be up to the 138 commitment, or less. “We need to do the analysis and work to ensure we get the right number,” he told the committee.

The British plan to only deploy one carrier at any given time due to a lack of resources. Knighton said the British “will be able to operate up to 24 aircaft from 2023 onwards. If we want to order aircraft to be delivered in the later part of the decade we will need to allocate some of the funding that we anticipate [being available] to do that. Defence committee chairman Tobias Ellwood commented on the small number of jets the British plan to operate from the carriers, saying: “We are going to end up with a fantastic looking aircraft carrier, very bespoke aircraft, but not many of them onboard.”

Sir Stephen Lovegrove, the permanent secretary at the MoD, told the committee that while it was certain Britain would order more jets it wouldn’t be anytime soon. “It’s inevitable we are going to buy more than 48 jets, otherwise we won’t be able to operate the carriers probably. Not for the next four years, though, it’s about the 48 [jets on order]. There are certainly plans and conversation with Lockheed Martin about the future purchases, we just haven’t got to the stage of contract yet,”

WE Branch Fanatic

11th Dec 2020, 11:24

The slow build up of the F-35B force is disappointing - but hopefully the new settlement for defence announced a few weeks ago might help. Perhaps a few quid could be spent on ASW helicopters - spares and support as well as airframes? I understand their are projects to improve ASW capabilities by improving the Pingers' ability to share information with other task group assets.

I think that some politicians forget that the aircraft carrier is not just about carrying jets for hitting targets ashore. They have a very real role in play in things such as (integrated) Anti Air Warfare and (integrated) Anti Submarine Warfare. Since a big thing seems to be made about deploying eight or so Typhoons somewhere, does deploying the same number of F-35B/Lightnings aboard a carrier that is also carrying a squadron of ASW Merlins for a NATO role, perhaps an exercise like Steadfast Defender 21 really such a let down?

SLXOwft

11th Dec 2020, 14:58

I thought it worthwhile reading the minutes. https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1350/pdf/

MoD PUS Sir Steven Lovegrove opening statement included the following:
The strategy is pretty clear. We know that there are significant pressures in the programme—the money certainly goes to help that—but there is a very clear direction on modernisation and the announcement made by the Prime Minister made it clear that he expects us to accelerate on that. We are clearly driven by three things, the first of which is an appreciation that the threat is getting greater weekly. We have recently seen much more activity by Russian warships in British waters, potentially hostile attempts to get into our supply chain and the continuation of violent extremism. We know what the threat is, and we are very much driven by a desire to meet it with modern technology and in more places more often across the world. We have a sense of wishing to be more actively deployed, thinking more about our posture than our contingent structure. We are driven by the desire of the Prime Minister and the Government for the UK to reassert itself on the world stage. We are mainly Euro-Atlantic, but clearly we will do more in the Asian Pacific. We are very much driven by an appreciation of the need to double down and invest in new technology, particularly where Britain is at the forefront. That is the strategy that is driving this. It will become fuller and betterarticulated in the integrated review, when the agencies, the Home Office and the Foreign Office will have their moments, but it is all part of a fairly clear picture.

Chair (Tobias Ellwood MP): The simple answer is yes; you don’t need to be a sea dog to know that it is 24 per carrier. But you are right in what you imply. The force effects at readiness is a rather military way of saying, “I need some to train on, I need some that will probably be in repair and I’m going to need some for long-term maintenance.” It still means that you have 24 to do that. The multiple on force effects at readiness is one to four: for every one that is combat ready, with a pilot, ready to go, you need another three spare for all these other activities, so you can guarantee the one. That means 24 divided by four, taking you down to six. You’re going to have six working aircraft ready to rock and roll on any deck at any time, if you stick to 48. Do you agree with that?

Sir Stephen Lovegrove: It rather depends on whether you have both carriers out at the same time, and we don’t anticipate they will be.

Air Marshal Knighton: Mr Ellwood, your arithmetic is spot on, but, as the permanent secretary says, the policy around the use of the carrier is that we will only deploy one carrier at a time. It will be available 100% of the time, and we will be able to deploy up to 24 jets on that carrier.

May be I am just thick but I can't see how the RN can support a robust strategy in both 'Euro-Atlantic' and 'Asian Pacific' with out an an assurance that they have the ability to deploy two carriers with a full air compliment. Or is it just they assume any Asia Pacific operations will always be under USN air cover?

The DCDS (Military Capability) cheered me up slightly.
Air Marshal Knighton: The Prime Minister made clear in his statement the importance of shipbuilding and his commitment to increasing the size of the Navy, particularly the Navy’s surface fleet. Type 32 is the name given to the follow-on capability from Type 31. The broad intent is that that will follow on in the same vein as Type 31, as a general-purpose frigate. It will have open architecture, which will enable it to fulfil a range of roles. We anticipate that construction will start towards the end of this decade, and we will use the time between now and then to refine the requirement and the potential design, and to understand the commercial model. We will be in a better place to answer your specific questions about how much it will cost and precisely what it will look like in due course. I’m afraid I cannot give you more specific guidance than that, other to confirm again the commitment that the Prime Minister has made both to shipbuilding and to increasing the Navy surface fleet. My emphasis

Asturias56

11th Dec 2020, 16:47

Interesting - first clear statement in a long time that the RN will only be operating one carrier at a time. And not a great deal of apparent enthusiasm for ordering more F-35's soon

I'd hoped they'd buy more Type 31's rather than go through another design phase but I guess that's out keeping people employed in the Constructors Office

Not_a_boffin

11th Dec 2020, 18:29

It was all in SDSR2015 and resulted in the slow squadron build up. In essence, two carriers available but only one air group It remains to be seen whether that persists through the IR.

Asturias56

12th Dec 2020, 08:05

SLXOwft

12th Dec 2020, 14:22

Lovegrove specifically said they wouldn't see more jets for "the next 4 years" - I'm hoping he means they take 4 years to deliver and they'll order more in 2022 for 2025/26 delivery - not that they're going to wait 4 years to order more......... but in these troubled times ...

The timeframe indicated by PUS is "late '20s", no doubt the actual dates will be heavily influenced by the additional affordability concerns of beancounters in the House of Darkness (HMT) following the effects on the economy of Covid and Brexit. The SDSR/IR cycle might also have an effect with the next one due in 2025 or 2026. Also we may well have a different party in government at the end of 2024.

Q54 Chair: To probe this a bit further, we have confirmed that we have 48 in the bag, but we don’t know if we will be getting any more than that. Am I right so far? A simple reply, please.
Sir Stephen Lovegrove: We do know that we will be getting more of those; we just haven’t put them on contract yet.
Q55 Chair: Have you got the money for that yet or not?
Sir Stephen Lovegrove:The money only goes for the next four years, and that will cover the 48. There is absolutely no question that we will need to be buying more F-35Bs if we want to properly equip the carriers. It will be in the late ‘20s.
Q56 Chair: I am right in saying that you have the 48 in the bag, and you have the money to pay for that. Beyond that, there is a question mark. That, I think, is fair. Do we agree so far?
Sir Stephen Lovegrove: I am really aiming not to be Sir Humphrey on this one. There is a question mark, yes, in the funding, because we only have funding for the next four years. And you are talking about beyond that period. If, however, the question is about whether we need more F-35Bs to properly equip the carriers, then there’s no doubt about that: yes we do

My favourite Lovegrove quote from this session is, "I have obviously become a fully naturalised Whitehall citizen, because I have been accused of being Sir Humphrey twice in the first hour."

Timelord

12th Dec 2020, 15:48

So, will there only be enough pilots and maintainers for one air group, and if so will they only ever be ashore long enough to shift their gear from QNLZ to PoW and back again?

Not_a_boffin

12th Dec 2020, 16:24

The timeframe indicated by PUS is "late '20s", no doubt the actual dates will be heavily influenced by the additional affordability concerns of beancounters in the House of Darkness (HMT) following the effects on the economy of Covid and Brexit. The SDSR/IR cycle might also have an effect with the next one due in 2025 or 2026. Also we may well have a different party in government at the end of 2024.

My favourite Lovegrove quote from this session is, "I have obviously become a fully naturalised Whitehall citizen, because I have been accused of being Sir Humphrey twice in the first hour."

I think he's trying hard not to preempt the IR and the outcome of combat air studies. I suspect the four years he's referring to is the existing approved budget for the 48, which runs to delivery of the last one in 2025.

If the IR or combat air studies change posture, then that's when they'll order any additional.

WE Branch Fanatic

23rd Dec 2020, 10:26

So, will there only be enough pilots and maintainers for one air group, and if so will they only ever be ashore long enough to shift their gear from QNLZ to PoW and back again?

I believe the plan is that when one carrier is in the Carrier Strike role the other will be in refit, working up, or operating in the Littoral Maneuvere role. I am not not sure there will be a fixed air group - indeed this is one of the advantages of V/STOL as the pilots can stay carrier qualified without constant training. The number embarked routinely will be lower than the number embarked during a real operation.

Try not to forget the contribution she will make to task group ASW and command and control, and that not all the operational tasks, such as NATO command duties spoken of here (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/both-carriers-to-undergo-remedial-work-to-prevent-flooding/), will be F-35B heavy. I expect either Queen Elizabeth or Prince of Wales to participate in the major NATO reinforcement exercise next year, which I expect will involve her performing a flagship role, with the jets doing intercepts, including being controlled from a Type 45, and the ASW Merlins doing coordinated ASW in conjunction with towed array equipped frigates, MPA, and even a submarine or two.

orca

23rd Dec 2020, 16:05

SLXOwft

23rd Dec 2020, 17:21

The article WEBF refers to is a report of a series of written PQs asked by Shadow Defence Minister, and MP for Pompey South, Stephen Morgan. Looks like Lordflasheart was correct about the £2m.

My understanding was also that the air group composition will be dynamic with assets determined according to the tasks at hand.

I assume WEBF you are speaking from inside knowledge :O as SHAPE's current public list of exercises https://shape.nato.int/nato-exercises doesn't include any Atlantic exercises and MARCOM isn't listing any yet for 2021? I assume a sort of Northern Civil Partnership, a pale shadow of Northern Wedding? The PQs would suggest the participant will be HMS QNLZ.

Question for Ministry of Defence
HMS Prince of Wales: Repairs and Maintenance
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress his Department is making on repairing HMS Prince of Wales after its second flooding incident in October 2020; and if he will make a statement.

Asked 8 December 2020 Answered 14 December 2020 by Jeremy Quin

Repairs of the damage caused by floodwater in the engine room of HMS PRINCE OF WALES are progressing as planned. The Ship's Company is conducting concurrent preparations for their programme of at sea training activity in 2021 which precede her operational commitments.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress his Department is making on repairing HMS Prince of Wales after its second flooding incident in October 2020; and if he will make a statement.

Question for Ministry of Defence
HMS Prince of Wales: Repairs and Maintenance
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 14 December 2020 to Question 126964, when HMS Prince of Wales will be operational again.

Asked 14 December 2020 Answered 17 December 2020 by James Heapey

HMS PRINCE OF WALES will return to sea in May 2021 to commence preparations for her next planned operational tasking. This underway period will take the form of activities in UK waters prior to her undertaking NATO Command duties in 2022.

Question for Ministry of Defence
HMS Prince of Wales: Repairs and Maintenance
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 14 December 2020 to Question 126964 on HMS Prince of Wales: Repairs and Maintenance, what estimate he has made of the cost of the repairs.

Asked 14 December 2020 Answered 17 December 2020 By Jeremy Quin

The estimated incremental cost of the repair work is £3.3 million.

Remedial work being conducted on both Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers to help prevent a repetition of this event is expected to cost £2.2 million.

WE Branch Fanatic

23rd Dec 2020, 19:19

I know that we all know this...but the Task Group’s task is not ASW. ASW is an enabler that allows the Task Group to go about the task in hand. The same is true of DCA.
Carrier Strike is about three bubbles. The small one in the middle is for admin/ deck ops and critical but boring stuff like that; the medium one is the Force Protection bubble of air and water space you need, slightly more exciting but not really worth shelling out for. ASW and DCA, that sort of triv. The big outer bubble is why you actually buy carriers - reserved for things like Strike, SF insertion...that sort of thing.
I’d love to hear that exercise planners etc ‘got it’!

Regarding your middle bubble - I think the middle and outer bubbles may well be the same thing. I am thinking of things such as protecting an amphibious force from the enemy, or defending resupply convoys - which is why the US Navy committed eight carrier groups to the Atlantic during the eighties - with a role of SLOC protection, as noted by this former US Navy EA-6B Prowler guy (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/late-1970s-us-congress-report-the-us-sea-control-mission-carriers-needed-in-the-atlantic.301236/#post-10200741).

...the primary mission for the CV/CVN in the North Atlantic was not ASW (it was an additional role) but rather AAW to prevent the Backfire/Bears from attacking the convoys.

It was also the reason the CVS was built with Sea Kings for ASW in the GIUK gap and SHAR to deal with the Bears providing reconnaissance and over the horizon targeting for submarine launched missiles. NATO is back to minding the gap...

I assume WEBF you are speaking from inside knowledge https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/embarass.gif as SHAPE's current public list of exercises https://shape.nato.int/nato-exercises doesn't include any Atlantic exercises and MARCOM isn't listing any yet for 2021? I assume a sort of Northern Civil Partnership, a pale shadow of Northern Wedding? The PQs would suggest the participant will be HMS QNLZ.

Try Googling Exercise Steadfast Defender 21 - or perhaps looking at this recent story from the RN website (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/november/30/20201130-nato-usa):

Exercise Steadfast Defender (STDE21) will be a significant milestone in achieving FOC, demonstrating JFC Norfolk’s competence and readiness to fulfil its roles and responsibilities.

As a SHAPE-sponsored operational and tactical level live exercise, STDE21 will train and evaluate a wide range of NATO and national force elements. Focused on the reinforcement of continental Europe from North America, NATO will exercise its ability to secure the Strategic Lines of Communication which link our continents.

Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum! Happy Christmas!

WE Branch Fanatic

4th Jan 2021, 22:11

Happy New Year!

Carrier Strike Group hits important milestone - hot off the press today! (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/carrier-strike-group-hits-important-milestone)

Both the air and naval elements of the CSG have now met this milestone, which includes qualified pilots and ground crews being held at short notice for carrier-based operations and trained to handle weapons and maintain the equipment. HMS Queen Elizabeth is now considered to have achieved IOC and is at five days' readiness to move.

https://twitter.com/smrmoorhouse/status/1346050834895958016

STDE21 and CSG21 coming up! Barring unexpected crises - of course!

Reposted to insert Twitter update.

WE Branch Fanatic

10th Jan 2021, 16:30

USS Gerald R Ford still experiencing problems - New York Post (https://nypost.com/2021/01/10/uss-gerald-r-ford-still-experiencing-problems/)

The issues on the USS Gerald R. Ford “remain consistent” with those from previous years, according to a Pentagon assessment obtained by Bloomberg News (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/navy-e2-80-99s-priciest-carrier-ever-struggles-to-get-jets-on-off-deck/ar-BB1cBCBI).

The carriers’ issues include problems getting jets off the deck and issues with the landing systems.

“Poor or unknown reliability of new technology systems critical for flight operations,” including the carriers’ electromagnetic launch system worth $3.5 billion could affect its ability to generate sorties, Bloomberg reported, citing the assessment.

Just think - people who should know a little about System Integration have claimed repeatedly that if the UK had got F-35C or F/A-18 and gone for a conventional carrier we could have regenerated Carrier Strike faster. Really? Just like people who argued that Typhoon should have been navalised - NO!

I wonder if the new light aircraft carrier the US Navy is planning will inherit any features from the QEC? It looks like the Korean one will. Has the Bedford Array technology been sold to anyone - I thought the Americans were considering using it to improve landing accuracy and I expect it would be useful to French pilots landing aboard the CDG?

Without her normal complement of jets, the Ford can still act as a flagship, conduct ASW operations with the MH-60R, and possibly embark either F-35B or AV-8B. Even in an ASW role you would want to have jets to stop hostile aircraft from interfering with your helicopters or doing reconiasance and over the horizon targeting.

You do have to expect problems with so many new systems being fitted at the same time. I doubt that the media coverage is completely fair.

Incidentally, the RN/RAF F-35B Lightning will be equipped with SPEAR3 for use against ground and maritime targets - including enemy warships. (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/january/06/20210106-spear-missile)

Asturias56

10th Jan 2021, 16:40

"the new light aircraft carrier the US Navy is planning " - they're not planning one WEBF - they're carrying out yet another comparative study - there are enough previous ones published so why they are bothering is beyond me

and don't crow too soon - many RN designs have issues that rear their heads later - T45's for example - and what did go wrong with the "Audacious"? 2 years late in sea trials and all sorts of rumours about something major not working

WE Branch Fanatic

25th Jan 2021, 07:38

I was not crowing - why would I? I was actually making the point that even with problems launching and recovering jets, the carrier is still a vital platform for ASW, Command and Control, and if you needed them V/STOL aircraft.

On the subject of carriers and ASW, in the last couple of weeks there has been a bit of an argument over on ARRSE on the Carrier Strike thread (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/cvf-and-carrier-strike-thread.178170/page-667#post-10521129) - for about twelve pages. It has been two arguments really:

1. The main operating area - peacetime sea lines of communication or transatlantic resupply/reinforcement routes as part of NATO? Note that they are not mutually exclusive, and shipping to the UK/Europe terminates in the Eastern Atlantic whatever the original source. A warship (or other unit) can be deployed East of Suez and redeploy if needed, as part of the NATO 30/30/30/30 initiative. Within thirty days, NATO will be able to deploy thirty major warships, thirty squadrons of combat aircraft, and thirty mechanised infantry battalions

2. ASW helicopters - a bit of a disagreement between those of us who can do basic Maths and those with experiencing of operating helicopters at sea, and those with experience in the land environment or Googling things. The extra ninety minutes of endurance that Merlin has compared to MH-60R or NH-90 really does make a difference, as does the Observer and avionics suite.

idle bystander

26th Jan 2021, 08:45

many RN designs have issues that rear their heads later

This is so true. Throughout my career the ships I served in suffered from blocked heads - normally the CPOs' heads. We generally blamed the Chief Stoker.
Sorry - I'll get my coat ...

Asturias56

26th Jan 2021, 14:50

but you don't want them rearing up surely? Rum, something else and the lash IIRC......... :E

eagle 86

28th Jan 2021, 00:50

I think you Brits should thank your lucky stars you appear to have to half decent carriers and a stovie air wing.
Here in Oz we are getting a French nuke sub that will have the guts ripped out to put a smelly diesel engine in.
A couple of "sort of" aviation platforms, mainly for the army, ski jumps but the chance of getting F35B's is about as Australia getting nuclear power generation.
We'll stick with wind/solar and save the world from you filthy polluters.
E86

Asturias56

28th Jan 2021, 07:38

Be careful what you wish for in Oztralia

Building and operating Carriers AND SSN's is very very expensive - one of the reasons the UK is looking at another Defence Review in the next few months

WE Branch Fanatic

29th Jan 2021, 07:50

Nonsense A56 - I think what you meant to say was that operating carriers and SSNs together is essential if you are involved in things like protecting SLOCs over oceanic distances.

This 1978 article from Flight Global might interest you - entitled 'Navy keeps its wings':

Navy keeps its wings part 1 (https://web.archive.org/web/20110811205733/http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1978/1978%20-%203003.html)

Navy keeps its wings part 2 (https://web.archive.org/web/20110811005756/http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1978/1978%20-%203004.html)

Not only does it talk about the planned role of CVS/Sea Harrier/Sea King in protecting convoys - doing ASW and dealing with Bears doing long range targeting, but it shows that WG34 (the intended successor to the ASW Sea King) would be very Merlin like. The article focuses on the aircraft that would operate from the CVS, and does not mention that the Sea Harriers would be controlled by Type 42 destroyers and other ships, or that the ASW Sea King would operate alongside frigates - Cold War/Falklands operations. It did not anticipate the development of active dipping sonar, nor how this would be used in conjunction with frigates equipped with towed array sonars.

Some news from the last few weeks: HMS Queen Elizabeth has now assumed the role Of Fleet Flagship (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/january/27/210127-fleet-flagship-handover). On a more practical note - the RN is increasing personnel numbers by 3000 over the next three years (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/january/19/2021019-collingwood-recruits) - not only will this allow more ships to be fully crewed and put to sea, but it will help with providing people for the Lightning Force.

Video Mixdown

29th Jan 2021, 09:25

I think you Brits should thank your lucky stars you appear to have to half decent carriers and a stovie air wing.E86
I believe QNLZ has a number of Australian and New Zealand crew members aboard, who will no doubt be very proud when their ship visits your ports later this year, and when exercising with Aus/NZ maritime assets. I imagine tickets to go aboard for a look round will be very hot property.

Asturias56

29th Jan 2021, 11:04

KiloB

30th Jan 2021, 10:35

A lot of people believe that building Carriers now is the equivalent of building Battleships in 1935. Let’s hope they are wrong!

WE Branch Fanatic

30th Jan 2021, 11:44

" I think what you meant to say was that operating carriers and SSNs together is essential "

No I meant they are both extremely expensive to buy and operate - and whilst an SSN will survive without a carrier escort it isn't the same the other way round............

Why would the SSN need a carrier (or any other) escort?

In the face of massed air and submarine threats, can the amphibious force or reinforcement/resupply convoy survive without a carrier with fighters and ASW helicopters? See the HSC Fire and Ice (http://www.hscentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Fire-and-Ice-A-New-Maritime-Strategy-for-NATOs-Northern-Flank.pdf) paper which highlights the Cold War roles of NATO carriers, possible maritime threats during a conflict in the NATO theatre, and the role of British, American, French, Italian (and Spanish) carriers in responding to Russian attempts to interdict Sea Lines of Communications or to strike NATO vulnerable points. Indeed the paper calls for a a British led carrier task group with NATO ships including SSNs and SSKs being part of that group.

A lot of people believe that building Carriers now is the equivalent of building Battleships in 1935. Let’s hope they are wrong!

The problem with the battleship was that her ability to hit other warships or other vessels, or targets ashore, was limited by the range of her guns. Her ability to deal with air attack, or to defend other ships in a convoy, was very limited, and her anti submarine capability was approximately zero. Carriers could (and can) do all these things, with her aircraft working with other warships.

See this cracking old documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StILWD_DgH0

At 7.00 minutes there is mention of escort carriers and the crucial role that they played in the Atlantic and in the Arctic Convoys - with fighters and torpedo bombers (performing anti U boat roles). The long range actions at Taranto, Matapan, and against the Bismarck and Tirpitz are also mentioned.

Asturias56

31st Jan 2021, 07:53

WEBF - I struggle with the idea that any future conflict will involve convoys across the Atlantic - IF it stays non-nuclear any conflict in Europe will still only last a few weeks

This isn't 1940

ORAC

10th Feb 2021, 07:52

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/388636/super-hornet-frs-squadron-marks-first-qualifies-naval-aviators-using-plm-uss-gerald-r-ford

Super Hornet FRS Squadron Marks a First, Qualifies Naval Aviators Using PLM on USS Gerald R. Ford

For the first time Naval Aviators assigned to the “Gladiators” of Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 106 qualified onboard the Ford-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) using the Precision Landing Mode (PLM), Feb. 8.

Carrier Strike Groups have been using PLM since 2017. In October 2017, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 2 was the first to conduct Composite Unit Training Exercise (COMPTUEX) aboard USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) with PLM.

Precision Landing Mode (PLM) provides improved safety, efficiency, and success rates in recovering fixed-wing aircraft onboard aircraft carriers while easing pilot workload. The new flight control technology improves overall boarding rates, creates the potential to reduce tanker requirements and improves Naval Aviation’s effectiveness.

“The pilots still have to fly the landing pattern around the ship and control the line-up, but with PLM, the glide slope control is smoother, and deviation is much smaller, making for a much safer landing qualification,” said Rear Adm. John Meier, Commander Naval Air Forces Atlantic. “The improved wave-off characteristics make PLM inherently safer for the aircraft carrier.”

PLM increases the safety of the most challenging evolution our pilots and flight deck crews face on a daily basis. Our most valuable asset is our people. PLM will also increase training efficiency, pilot proficiency, and enable aircrew to better use flight time to train for the diverse, and ever expanding assortment of tactical and strategic missions for which the Super Hornet and Naval Aviation as a whole is so renowned.

Precision Landing Mode was originally developed as part of the Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies (MAGIC CARPET) program.

The technology as implemented in the Super Hornet was first tested at sea in April 2015, when Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 pilots and Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) aeromechanics division engineers from Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Md. demonstrated the software aboard CVN 77........

etudiant

10th Feb 2021, 14:59

WEBF - I struggle with the idea that any future conflict will involve convoys across the Atlantic - IF it stays non-nuclear any conflict in Europe will still only last a few weeks

This isn't 1940
Australia is discovering that China can signal displeasure very strongly just by not buying stuff.
Given the ongoing industrial production shifts to Asia from the West, China will add the capacity to halt shipments of manufactured goods for even greater effect.
Guarding empty ships does not seem a useful role in that scenario.

WE Branch Fanatic

10th Feb 2021, 16:54

WEBF - I struggle with the idea that any future conflict will involve convoys across the Atlantic - IF it stays non-nuclear any conflict in Europe will still only last a few weeks

This isn't 1940

I was thinking more of the reinforcements moving by sea across the Atlantic, or amphibious operations. See the scenario in the Fire and Ice paper (http://www.hscentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Fire-and-Ice-A-New-Maritime-Strategy-for-NATOs-Northern-Flank.pdf) from the Human Security Centre. The chapters 'The Modern Strategic Context' and 'A New NATO Maritime Strategy' are of particular interest. The NATO 'four thirties' plan is very dependent on crisis response shipping, with naval protection. There are RN personnel involved in planning for (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/november/30/20201130-nato-usa) Exercise Steadfast Defender 21:

Across the Atlantic, nestled within the largest naval city in the world, is Allied Joint Force Command Norfolk, NATO’s newest operational command.

The command was created in response to NATO’s 2018 review and adaptation of its command structure that identified the Alliance’s need for a stronger linkage between Europe and North America, in response to increasing threats within the North Atlantic region.

Having achieved initial operational capability in September 2020 and programmed to reach full operational capability (FOC) at the end of 2021, JFC Norfolk is taking on a core-coordinating role in assuring the security of the Strategic Lines of Communication across the Euro-Atlantic area, through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and into the Arctic.

----

As a SHAPE-sponsored operational and tactical level live exercise, STDE21 will train and evaluate a wide range of NATO and national force elements. Focused on the reinforcement of continental Europe from North America, NATO will exercise its ability to secure the Strategic Lines of Communication which link our continents.

Australia is discovering that China can signal displeasure very strongly just by not buying stuff.
Given the ongoing industrial production shifts to Asia from the West, China will add the capacity to halt shipments of manufactured goods for even greater effect.
Guarding empty ships does not seem a useful role in that scenario.

Why would empty ships be sailing?

etudiant

10th Feb 2021, 22:01

As a SHAPE-sponsored operational and tactical level live exercise, STDE21 will train and evaluate a wide range of NATO and national force elements. Focused on the reinforcement of continental Europe from North America, NATO will exercise its ability to secure the Strategic Lines of Communication which link our continents.

Why would empty ships be sailing?
Was thinking that their cargo has been held up and not shipped from China....
Modern semiconductor electronics are largely made in Taiwan and Korea, with the US now providing less than half the output of either of those two. At the low end, China produces 10 times the steel tonnage annually the US does.
Just what technical superiority does NATO think it has or will have in another decade to offset massive industrial inferiority?

Hot 'n' High

11th Feb 2021, 11:12

...... Just what technical superiority does NATO think it has or will have in another decade to offset massive industrial inferiority?

Good point. TBH, it seems a major shift towards "economic warfare" has been with us since before the end of the Cold War. Taking Russia, currently reading a fascinating book on the rise of Putin and the KGB since the end of the Soviet Union and how inter-twined Russia has become with the West commercially, using the West's propensity to put "profits before morals", to enable Russia to position itself so as to be able to hold others to economic (and, hence, political) ransom. The opening credits to "Have I Got News For You" had it nailed way back with the bit about the gas pipeline!!!! Nord Stream 2 is just the latest twist on a rather murky saga which has been running for decades. And gas is just one area. It sort of makes the usefulness of Aircraft Carriers a somewhat academic argument.....

Asturias56

12th Feb 2021, 07:53

yes - I've read the book as aweel - everyone should

Places like the City of London are hand in glove with Putin. his mates, the FSB/SVR and Organised Crime........

WE Branch Fanatic

20th Feb 2021, 17:40

Just as I predicted, before the CSG21 deployment, HMS Queen Elizabeth and her aircraft and task group will undertake a mission of the greatest importance - both nationally and to the NATO alliance. This follows on from her participation in Exercise Joint Warrior. I imagine that this will be in conjunction with STDE21.

https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1362465689563373570

Auxtank

20th Feb 2021, 17:56

Quite so.
For such a seemingly big unwieldy girl she cuts a fine figure dancing a jig to the twin pipes of Global Democracy and the Bean-Counters.
That's why she was laid down in the first place.
Now she has to earn her pay-dirt by lying back and thinking of England.

And she'll do a grand job.

ORAC

22nd Feb 2021, 21:42

Littoral Strike Ships

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/littoral-strike-ship-concepts-see-light-again/

A concept image (shown below) designed to show how the ‘Future Commando Force’ will operate shows two ‘Littoral Strike Ships’ as well as ‘discrete shipping’ being used to land British forces.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x816/flss1_185615aa99bcedf4a1829aa800b777072f051126.jpg

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1253x705/fcf1_4f682721037106821fb7e8c5f21b35882723282d.jpg

Asturias56

23rd Feb 2021, 07:11

looks like an "Argos" upgrade.................

Cpt_Pugwash

23rd Feb 2021, 09:49

...... of the "Point"-class Ro-Ro vessels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-class_sealift_ship

Asturias56

23rd Feb 2021, 16:41

I'd assume that they'd go back to the S Koreans who built the new tankers

Not_a_boffin

23rd Feb 2021, 19:19

I'd assume that they'd go back to the S Koreans who built the new tankers

You'd assume wrongly. UK ships for UK yards is the new mantra. DSME got their fingers burned as well, they won't be playing with MoD again, any time soon.

Asturias56

24th Feb 2021, 07:47

You'd assume wrongly. UK ships for UK yards is the new mantra. DSME got their fingers burned as well, they won't be playing with MoD again, any time soon.

you know - that doesn't fill me with joy - when did a British yard last build a similar sized commercial vessel?

Not_a_boffin

24th Feb 2021, 08:30

you know - that doesn't fill me with joy - when did a British yard last build a similar sized commercial vessel?

2000-2001. When that "shipyard" in Belfast completed two of the Point Strategic Ro-Ro ships.

Not going to be easy (or cheap to start with) - but it would appear that a decision has been made to include all HMG owned/operated ships within scope of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.

Asturias56

24th Feb 2021, 17:22

Dear oh dear...............

BATCO

25th Feb 2021, 05:00

Littoral Strike Ships......

Good to see Chinooks on the deck. CHF might feel a bit left out.

Batco

WE Branch Fanatic

27th Feb 2021, 18:34

The mighty Sea Harrier, although long retired, is still key to teaching young men and women the basics of handling live jet aircraft in the confines of a carrier deck.

https://twitter.com/JetArtAviation/status/1364672113781669888

We are regenerating things than many of us took for granted. If only our politicians in 2002 and 2010 could have accepted that the Status Quo existed for a reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvuXPQrXZdE

LowObservable

2nd Mar 2021, 14:06

UK carrier aviation has gone through some remarkable twists and turns, but this takes the cake, the plate and the little plastic bride and groom on top.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-looking-at-cats-and-traps-to-launch-aircraft-at-sea/

Given the last time we went through this, lo, a decade ago, "3-5 years" sounds like the result of inhaling fungal fumes, unless somebody has come up with a miracle solution and this RFI is the kind you write when you know who's going to deliver the only valid response.

The weight limits say "definitely not FJs" unless the RN plans to buy Sea Gripen. More like a recognition that in the era of manned-unmanned teaming, the RN will be excluded unless people build STOVL UAVs, which is unlikely.

Petit-Lion

3rd Mar 2021, 19:48

Rafales could come for a cup of tea :)

NutLoose

8th Mar 2021, 23:45

And now they think they need the damned catapults again that have been on and off more times than a lady of the nights knickers..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/08/royal-navy-eyes-catapult-system-launch-drones-jets-aircraft/

ORAC

9th Mar 2021, 06:30

Evalu8ter

9th Mar 2021, 09:58

ORAC,
My thoughts are that with the loss of the Bonnie Dick, the USMC will be a deck down for the foreseeable future, probably enabling a near-permanent USMC presence on the QEC. Capping at 48 now, applying the 'rule of thirds', only realistically sustains 16 jets for warfighting (ie embarked), 16 for training/currency and 16 for sustainment (depth servicing, upgrade, repair and attrition). Add in a USMC VFA and you're back to 24-26 embarked which is the advertised 'peacetime maximum'. Given that F-35 is so 'digital' and comes with a heavy use of synthetics, there might be some variance in those fleet numbers. However, the current plan is for F-35 to be in production for decades so we can 'dip back in' if finances permit, we lose too many to sustain the fleet or to take advantage of a Block Upgrade that is cheaper to build from new than retrofit. Re EMALS, my suspicion is that the RN have finally worked out that they are going to be too 'upthreat' to effect many near-peer nations with F-35 without the ship being vulnerable to shore based ASMs (and some nations, doctrinally, will launch a mass attack to empty the DD/FF VLSs…). It's a similar issue that the USN faces with decks full of tactical aircraft and no tanker save for 'buddy buddy'. The USN answer is the MQ-25 Stingray, and I suspect this is in the mind of the RN when looking at UAV EMALS, as well as launching LANCA style UAV wingmen to add combat mass, deception and EW/EA/SEAD to an F-35 strike package. Naval Tempest would need to be factored into the program now, if not already too late, to influence design and stress assumptions, the USN F-XX may be a desirable option in terms of risk/cost but I doubt we can afford 2x Gen 6 platforms.

PostMeHappy

9th Mar 2021, 11:11

...and a lot of money was spent upgrading Marham for just 48 shiny Daves......

iranu

9th Mar 2021, 11:46

These articles always appear at the time of defence reviews and always get the same response. Capping at 48. Buying a mix of C and B. Mothballing one carrier. Navalised Typhoon! Navalised Tempest! (Sorry Evalu8ter). It's probably designed to elicit such a response. The Daily Telegraph are at it with EMALS for the carriers to launch shiny new all singing all dancing vapourware drones and future aircraft.

Then again defence procurement in the UK and US is an absolute mess. No-one knows what they want and as soon as costs are realised the reinvention of the wheel starts again with an evaluation of a brand spanking new square wheel with plenty of gold plate, which will morph into something slightly better than the old wheel but at 3 times the cost. Then the cycle repeats. Lessons don't ever seem to be learned, so we jump on reports of such lunacy which often turn out to be the sad truth. If we just stuck to the original plan we'd be far better off as each platform matures.

Navalised Grippen-E anybody? /joke

P.S. Interest payments on the UK debt are now greater than the defence budget.

Not_a_boffin

9th Mar 2021, 12:48

If, as reported by The Times, no F-35s will be purchased beyond the 48 already on order, and the planned delivery schedule, what would be a possible plan for a future air wing?

Extended cooperation with the USMC and a permanent squadron on board alongside one RAF/RN squadron?

One RAF/Wing 24 aircraft wing rotating between the QE2/POW with the other just used as a CVH and a trickle buy of attrition spares?

Fitting drone capable EMALS and having an air wing of one F-35B Sqn with drone UCAV wingmen?

Rotating one full wing between the two until a refit with EMALS and a naval Tempest?

As above but hanging on for the rumoured USN F-XX?

I imagine there will be a lot of pages written if the capping at 48 aircraft is confirmed.

I suspect giving the pre-IR speculation by an echo-chamber of defence journos a stiff ignoring might be the best view. The latest "official" view on the F35 buy was back in December at the HCDC by FinMilCap himself.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1350/pdf/

Q52 Sarah Atherton: Gentlemen, can I speak about the air combat strategy and in particular the F-35? Originally, the MOD stated its intention to buy 138 Lightning aircraft to support four operational squadrons and both carriers. That is now being degraded down to 48 jets to be delivered by 2026. So, with this increase in defence spending, will we see a commitment to purchase more aircraft?

Air Marshal Knighton: The 48 aircraft that you describe are those that we have ordered, that we have funding set aside for; as you say, the final ones are due to be delivered over the next five or six years. We know from our analysis that in order to sustain the F-35 capability and the carrier capability, we do need to increase the number of F-35s that we buy, and that we will want to do that over the period beyond 2025, when the next batch are brought into service. The precise number and the shape of that profile is, to some extent, dependent on our analysis around the overall future combat air system. While we know we need to increase the number of F-35Bs to support the carrier right the way through to its out-of-service date, the precise number will depend a bit on the work we do and the investment we’re making in the future combat air system, which the Prime Minister talked about. So we expect to be able to make definitive judgments around total future fleet in the 2025 timeframe; it could be up to the 138 or it could be less than that, but we need to do that analysis and that work to make sure that we get the right number. I can confirm that we know we will need to order more F-35Bs than we currently have on order.

Not_a_boffin

9th Mar 2021, 12:51

P.S. Interest payments on the UK debt are now greater than the defence budget.

And have been for most of the preceding decade....

NutLoose

9th Mar 2021, 17:38

Reading between the lines and the fact it says the cat would be capable of taking an F18, one wonders if the US is also pushing the idea to the MOD. Surely the ski jump would have to go.

https://www.naval-technology.com/features/uk-carrier-cats-and-traps/

Easy Street

9th Mar 2021, 19:19

Reading the Sunday Times piece again, I note the wording is that an "order" for 90 F35s will be cancelled. This shows a misunderstanding of the present situation as there is no 'order' beyond the first 48; the remainder are merely a stated intention. I suppose it is possible that the review will conclude that no additional F35 orders will be placed during this review period (ie before 2025, as stated by AM Knighton) and that either the leaker or the journalist has misinterpreted this as 'cancellation'. Not long until we find out, anyway.

ORAC

9th Mar 2021, 20:00

I believe the point is that any available funds are being diverted towards the Tempest - so unless extra billions are made available no cash for extra F-35s will be available...

pasta

9th Mar 2021, 20:39

Surely the ski jump would have to go.
Can't they just drive backwards and fire them off the stern? :-)

Asturias56

10th Mar 2021, 07:48

"I suppose it is possible that the review will conclude that no additional F35 orders will be placed during this review period (ie before 2025, as stated by AM Knighton)"

But even if that happens (and I really cant see why the finances are going to be better in 4 years time) i'll be several years before they turn up - The UK will only have 48 (or 16 active as per Evalu8ter's post). I can see the USMC being a permanent addition to the QE

Easy Street

10th Mar 2021, 16:42

But even if that happens (and I really cant see why the finances are going to be better in 4 years time) i'll be several years before they turn up - The UK will only have 48 (or 16 active as per Evalu8ter's post). I can see the USMC being a permanent addition to the QE

It's potentially a question of time rather than finances. If it's decided to make a go of Tempest as land-based-only and keep F35B until carrier OSD, then we might find that operating assumptions change such that a handful of additional F35Bs would be taken in the 2030s before a fatigue replacement of the original 48 at the very end of the production run (ideally 2040s or even 50s if the line keeps going). Better to work the original 48 hard and take delivery of new-build late model aircraft than to be liable for upgrade and support costs of a large but lightly used fleet. That would mean no deliveries at this, or perhaps even the next review.

Asturias56

11th Mar 2021, 07:27

But we had a case for over 100 F-35's....................... so an awful lot of things we thought we were going to do won't be possible.

EricsLad

11th Mar 2021, 12:17

Hi folks,
can someone please explain why a combination of bow-ramp and a shortened catapult cannot or will not be used?
The bow-ramp would add its effect to a lower powered catapult (with a faster reloading cycle). I accept that a "beefed-up" nose gear might be required but surely that gets a thump on a conventional landing.
Maybe, future airframe designs could include this capability to make this viable.
That this method is not being used indicates that it is not workable, but I would appreciate more of a reason why.
Thank you.

NutLoose

11th Mar 2021, 12:44

Well couple of reasons I can think of, If you operated an F18. it flies itself off so probably the computers expect it to be pretty much level on take off.. The other main one would be landing, If they miss the arrestor cable they do a bolter and go around again, so they're in both cases probably carrying to much speed to use a ramp?
That said the Russians catapult launch of a ski slope. but the cross deck used in landings does not have one.

JUST GUESSING.... ANYONE?

Bengo

11th Mar 2021, 13:14

Assuming the cat run ends before the start of the ramp, as is needed for a straight cat. The aircraft nose wheel then has to detach from the cat before the start of shuttle deceleration. So the nosewheel is probably clear of the deck at this point, not rolling along it.. At some point it will then hit the ramp producing a retarding force at the nosewheel as well as an upward one. The aircraft needs to be designed for this.
That it has not been done is probably because aircraft tend to be designed to fit existing carriers and any carrier upgrades are compatible with existing a/c fleets. Plus, if you have most of your capability built around a conventional cat launch, why would you want to change the whole way you do business when it seems to be working?

Steam catapults work best when straight, so they are not compatible with a ski jump entry and continuation up ramp. I know little about electric ones, but they may be able to accept the bend needed to run up the ramp. In that case it is probably easier to design a curved cat than an aircraft that can be catapulted into the ramp entry and your aircraft then does not have to carry a penalty into action..

You also need to look at what you would get back . Yes, Ski jumps are dirt cheap; same price per pound as best bacon someone once said. Their benefit though is greatest for vectored thrust aircraft which can support some weight with thrust and the rest with lift whilst also accelerating on the ballistic trajectory from the ramp exit until lift is sufficient to support the whole weight. The alternatives to the F35B/ramp combination don't have vectored thrust, so don't make the same gains. I think you would need to look at the total a/c energy off a cat/ramp combination and compare it with the a/c energy off a straight, but longer, cat only launch to see whether there was any benefit.

N

Not_a_boffin

11th Mar 2021, 15:01

From memory, one of the limiting factors is entry-speed into the ramp, largely through nose-gear limits - which also affect the profile of the ramp. That basically means that end-speed of any cat is limited to that entry speed for the ramp. What that means is that any cat ends up being provided to accelerate the aircraft to a relatively low speed, so all you're doing is replacing a long flat deck run with a shorter one, enabled by a system that adds quite a bit of cost / complexity. The fact you're using a system also means that you end up slowing down launch rate (to allow shuttle return, line-up, aircraft hookup check etc. Duplicating that system for redundancy or increased launch rate will be problematic, given you have to align with a single ramp. You might get some extra safe parking deck area out of it, but not sure it's worth the effort and cost.

Significantly reducing the ramp angle means you'd end up with higher end speed and a longer cat, albeit potentially easier to include multiple ramps/cats, but it's still a marginal benefit, if any.

Mogwi

11th Mar 2021, 15:12

Two problems with nose gear off a ramp at increased speed: Compression of the nose leg on entry to the ramp and rapid extension of same on exit. Exceedence of either will knacker the leg and probably loosen a few teeth.

Mog

Video Mixdown

11th Mar 2021, 18:21

I would have thought a better solution would be a UAV with STOL performance. It would not need to be capable of hovering flight, just have enough augmented lift (probably from a degree of vectored thrust) to perform ski-jump take offs and SRVL landings.

ORAC

11th Mar 2021, 21:44

Extend the port forward deck to fit an angled EMAL catapult to launch UCAV, retain the Ramp for the F-35B.

I would listen to the experts to understand if fitting cables would allow UCAV to land on the straight deck and bolter off the ramp or if that would also need use of an angled deck.

petit plateau

12th Mar 2021, 11:14

Several years ago I asked if studies were being done to retrofit mini-catapults to the QE's, sufficient to launch Hawk/Taranis size UAVs (9,000kg, 20,000lbs) or larger MQ-25 size (delivers 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel, prob about 40,000 lbs max weight). Response came there none, nor denial, which told me all I needed to know.

The Tesla model S Plaid has a top speed of 200 mph (320 km/h), go from 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in 1.99s and has regenerative braking. It weighs 4960 lbs, 2250 kg. There is more than one way of making a widget to accelerate/decelerate an aircraft rapidly down a deck and adapting the same commercial technology at both ends of the launch/recover sequence has some design/operate/train/maintain advantages. Technology in this area is progressing very quickly.

One option is angled catapult (added deck sponson, with or without some form of ramp) and angled recovery which has the advantage of leaving the main 'heavy' deck path clearer but the disadvantage of cutting into the port deck park area. As others have pointed out oleo loads on ramps are important. Just going down the main deck is the simplest path.

WE Branch Fanatic

15th Mar 2021, 16:43

Back to the present - the NATO Exercise Dynamic Manta (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/exercise-dynamic-manta-comes-to-an-end-in-mediterranean/) has involved Rafales from the French carrier FS Charles De Gaulle providing air defence for an ASW task group.

During the sea phase of the exercise, complex interactions between Dynamic Manta participating units and the Charles de Gaulle Carrier Strike Group (CSG) were also carried out.

An air defence exercise with CSG air assets (4 x Rafale) increased the surface units anti-aircraft warfare capabilities, say NATO.

You may also find this declassified US Navy document interesting - Sea Based Antisubmarine Warfare 1940-1977 (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20494272/cross_report_complete.pdf)

From page 159 of part 2 (page 370 of the PDF)

The Soviet threat was considered to include the long range naval aircraft Backfire as well as the older Bear, with 50 to 100 of the former anticipated by 1981. In addition "a fleet of 28 missile cruisers and 75 missile destroyers could challenge our surface supremacy while approximately 200 cruise missile and torpedo attack submarines could be deployed against us." Thus, it was, anticipated that the Soviets would mount a full three ~ dimensional threat in the North Atlantic.

Studies had shown that at least three CVs would be required in the Northeast Atlantic primarily to block Soviet long range bombers, most notably Backfires, penetrating the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) Gap into the open ocean. In addition, these carriers would serve to deter the movement of the Soviet surface fleet into the Atlantic basin as well as shielding Iceland and the vital sea lines of communication to England and Europe. As the ASW contest developed these carriers would be stationed at selected distances from the P-3 land bases so that the S- 3s could efficiently conduct area ASW search and SOSUS coordination while optimizing the shore based P-3 effort.

In addition, three carriers were needed in the central Atlantic - close to the mid- Atlantic shipping routes in order to aid in antisubmarine warfare, as well as to counter successful long range reconnaissance aircraft penetrations. This, of course, was the Atlantic Ocean area where the CVE Hunter-Killer Groups had operated most effectively during 1943 and 1944 against the German U-Boats.

The latter role sounds like the designed role for the Invincible class/Sea King/Sea Harrier. Not a million miles away from a possible QEC/F-35B Lightning/Merlin role.

Paying Guest

15th Mar 2021, 16:56

But we had a case for over 100 F-35's....................... so an awful lot of things we thought we were going to do won't be possible.
The widely quoted figure of 138 goes back to the time of Initial Gate for the project when that figure, based on 1 for 1 replacement for Harriers, was a planning assumption, so at that time no detailed case for a specific number had been developed.

WE Branch Fanatic

15th Mar 2021, 22:40

Carriers are not just about fast jets!

A NATO publication: 2021 (http://www.cjoscoe.org/infosite/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021-Bow-Wave.pdf)Cutting the Bow Wave (http://www.cjoscoe.org/infosite/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021-Bow-Wave.pdf)

The Atlantic Nexus

The North Atlantic, Arctic and Baltic regions form a strategic ‘Atlantic Nexus’. As recently demonstrated in the Russian navy’s 2019 Exercise Ocean Shield, assets from both the Northern and Baltic fleets can be redirected to concentrate force across this area. The character of the Atlantic Nexus has changed remarkably since the Cold War. Then, as now, NATO’s critical challenge in the North Atlantic is to protect the sea lines of communication and transatlantic resupply in a conflict by keeping Russian forces contained above the Norwegian Sea. But the Arctic, once valuable only as the cover for Russia’s nuclear - powered, ballistic missile - carrying submarine force, is now a contested civil and economic space. Furthermore, the Baltic dilemma is inverted from its Cold War manifestation: then NATO’s strategy was to keep the Soviet Navy from breaking out into the Atlantic through the Danish Straits or the Kattegat; today, the strategy focuses on ensuring that NATO maritime forces can break in to help defend its Baltic Allies.

The Atlantic Nexus disappeared from NATO’s agenda after the demise of the Soviet Union, and until recently few were adept in the art of transatlantic maritime resupply. Since 2014, NATO has recognised the challenge and in 2018 empowered MARCOM as the 360 - degree Maritime Theatre Component Command while establishing Joint Force Command Norfolk with the mandate to secure Atlantic sea lines of communication. The US Second Fleet has been stood up again with a strong Arctic and North Atlantic focus. The German navy is developing a Baltic-facing maritime headquarters at Rostock with the ambition to take on coordination and (during a conflict) command roles for Allied naval forces in the Baltic. The Polish Navy is developing a similar capability.

At the heart of this Atlantic challenge is the submarine threat. Recent years have seen an explosion in studies on the need to protect transatlantic sea lines of communication against the Russian submarine force as part of NATO’s credible deterrent posture. These have been paralleled by conversations and planning inside the Alliance. Unsurprisingly, reinvigorating NATO’s anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability is a high priority for NATO and MARCOM. More than any other form of naval warfare, ASW operations must battle the elements as much as an adversary. The sheer size of the oceans presents difficulties for both attacker and defender, not least as the result of the reduced fleets of surface ships, submarines and maritime patrol aircraft on all sides. New technology also portends a change in both the lethality of submarines and the possibility of detecting them by non-acoustic means.

But there is a second dilemma in relation to the Atlantic Nexus: the peacetime impact of the Russian navy’s ‘Kalibrisation’ coupled with these forces’ presence in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. This leaves the western flank of Europe potentially vulnerable to missile attack from the sea. Although of limited use in a protracted and major conflict, such naval forces fit well with a hybrid strategy based on a short-war model that seeks to intimidate the Alliance into backing down in a crisis.

Effective deterrence in this scenario depends on NATO’s ability to counter that threat and assure Allies through its credible naval capability and persistent presence when needed, before crisis occurs. That requires a fully resourced Standing Naval Force and close coordination among Allied forces operating under national command.

The defence of Norway and Iceland presents unusual joint challenges that have maritime power at their core. Both countries occupy critical strategic space in the Atlantic Nexus. Carrier strike and amphibious power projection provide the main, although by no means exclusive, sword and shield in contesting the North Atlantic in a conflict. New questions abound: how can NATO best use aircraft carriers in the North Atlantic given today’s technologies? How does the Kalibrisation of the Russian fleet alter both Russian and NATO strategy? Arguably, Norway and Iceland are even more valuable to the Alliance deterrent posture today than during the Cold War, given NATO’s need to reinforce its ability to operate in contested northern waters against credible adversary forces.

Asturias56

16th Mar 2021, 08:06

WEBF - a word to the wise - don't post the same article in multiple threads - the Mods don't like it .. it got me banned from Rumours & News for 2 years.........................

Hot 'n' High

16th Mar 2021, 12:42

The widely quoted figure of 138 goes back to the time of Initial Gate for the project when that figure, based on 1 for 1 replacement for Harriers, was a planning assumption, so at that time no detailed case for a specific number had been developed.

It seems like the 138 number, defined along the lines of "procured over the programme lifetime", has remained in being for a long while in that case as that was also given in the 2015 SDSR and has only just been called into question (2021). The actual procurement profile has never been detailed (to my knowledge) after the first batches of 16 + 17 + 15 to get us to 48 by 2025. So the 138 figure seems to have been around for quite a while - but with no real detail out into the future that I know of. Only now, Tempest has necessitated a significant rethink so who knows.

Regarding the 138 figure, I do know that some modelling was being done circa 97/98. Of course it was just known as JSF at that time and, IIR, that was just after Main Gate 1. When was the "Initial Gate"? I was supplying some "supportability" data to Farnborough to help feed the various War scenarios so, sadly, I never got involved in the modelling itself. That was done by a great team of boffins at Farnborough who I really enjoyed working with. Certainly one of them has subsequently had a very successful career with DSTL since then which is really very good to see! :ok:

What figures they came up with I have no idea but the scenarios were varied and quite in-depth (as in they modelled right back down into the depths of the supply chain, through the carrier deck/hangar capacity to handle certain sortie rates and then on into the battle space itself) in order to derive Fleet numbers to support each scenario. If that supported the 138 then that was derived/proved way beyond a "1 for 1" replacement exercise. Or, just maybe, no-one has ever been able to agree the "requirement scenario/s" so it stuck with the 138 lifetime estimate with a smaller "at any given time" Fleet size, probably as a result of the Farnborough work. I have no idea - others on here may know more!

Anyway, an update? https://www.airforce-technology.com/features/uk-mod-civilian-head-casts-doubt-on-138-f-35-fleet-numbers/

Asturias56

16th Mar 2021, 14:24

this is he actual wording from the Review - now available on line

Develop the next generation of naval vessels, including Type 32 frigates and Fleet Solid Support ships, and deliver our plans for eight Type 26 and five Type 31 frigates.

Progress our Carrier Strike capabilities, with at least 48 F-35s by 2025.

pr00ne

16th Mar 2021, 14:26

And Johnson's wording in the Commons today in reply to a question:

"at least after the review we will have 24 frigates as against the 15 we have now"

RN has 13 Frigates...

ORAC

16th Mar 2021, 14:32

Pr00ne,

Best tell the navy, they list 15 frigates. Including Glasgow and Belfast.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/surface-fleet

pr00ne

16th Mar 2021, 15:02

ORAC,

They have 13 Type 23 Frigates, all Type 23. Glasgow and Belfast are chunks of metal being put together in two BAE shipyards in Glasgow with the first of type due in service in 2027...

ORAC

16th Mar 2021, 16:10

As I say, tell the navy - if they add them on their website they have 15, doubtless they brief the same number to Downing Street.

Their toys after all, so their choice when to add or remove them from the declared surface fleet.

SWBKCB

16th Mar 2021, 16:50

A bit of light relief....An SNP supporter has been left red-faced after confusing aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth with the Queen herself. After Police Scotland warned people about restrictions in place while the HMS Queen Elizabeth was in the area, Kerry Newton took to Twitter to question why the Queen was allowed into Scotland given current coronavirus lockdown restrictions.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/woman-red-faced-after-confusing-aircraft-carrier-with-monarch/ar-BB1eDpNQ

WE Branch Fanatic

24th Mar 2021, 18:42

Here is an article about US Navy experiments with fast jets in ASW roles (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39809/the-navy-experimented-with-turning-its-attack-jets-into-submarine-hunters-50-years-ago?fbclid=IwAR2w3b6kSSQrU7JOgB56h8vMat4ffDC430z143UeDYqAcPx xUcnFexH0wnY)

The article is by a former S-3 Viking guy and discusses a number of attempts to find a way for fast jets to contribute to ASW. He then goes on to discuss the role of the SH-3 Sea King, including the questionable use of the limited number of ASW helicopters.

During my time aboard the USS Nimitz and Theodore Roosevelt, the Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Nine (HS-9) aviators would express their frustration at having to haul cargo, VIPs, and chaplains around while their ASW skills atrophied. In his article, Lieutenant Coogan recommended that utility helicopters (SH-3G models) be utilized to handle all logistics and SAR/plane guard duties. Obviously, as history shows, the common sense of such a smart idea was lost on the Pentagon and Capitol Hill.

Our carriers will usually have Junglies on board for things such as HDS, VERTEP, and some SAR. That will free up the Pingers for ASW and ASuW surveillance. Going to sea routinely might improve some of the attitudes that started to be present in non seagoing WAFUs.

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1374722017946112004
Crowsnest Flies (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/march/24/20210324-crowsnest-flies)

Each helicopter has a crew of three: two observers (mission and tactical specialists) and one pilot. High above the fleet with their sophisticated sensors, they enable the carrier strike group commander to see, understand and react well beyond the horizon for any air or surface threats. They can also act as a control centre for strike operations between the carrier and the ship’s F-35 Lightning jets.

As old and bold PWO(U) once told me that the Sea King 2/7 also could act as a communications relay for Pingers in the dip.

Commodore Steve Moorhouse, Commander UK Carrier Strike Group, who will direct HMS Queen Elizabeth’s first deployment with the help of his staff, said the new Merlins were the final pieces in the group’s large, complex jigsaw.

“It’s hugely encouraging to see the progress of the Crowsnest trials. Already one the most advanced submarine hunters, the Merlin Crowsnest will offer long-range intelligence and surveillance against surface and airborne threats, and the ability to command and control strike missions,” he said.

“Coupled with the Wildcat attack helicopter, the UK Carrier Strike Group will soon operate one of the most capable and versatile helicopter air groups.”

Commander Ian Varley, the Commanding Officer of 820 Naval Air Squadron, which is dedicated to protecting the carriers, their escorts and support ships*, said his air and ground crew had been working tirelessly to prepare for the carrier mission; almost his entire squadron will be deploying with HMS Queen Elizabeth.

*Also any crisis response shipping or amphibious forces being escorted,

Message from the First Sea Lord (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/march/23/1sl-message-on-integrated-review)

We will operate both carriers, buy more F-35 jets and sort out the support shipping for the carriers.

That links with the amazing deployment that heads east at the end of May, taking in over 40 countries and 70 visits.

Our carriers are the best design in the world. Our jets are the best in the world.

We’re going to use them in NATO and around the world to protect our allies, our interests and our trade.

andrewn

24th Mar 2021, 23:06

Thanks for the propaganda download WEBF, it all sounds amazing. There's just SO much you can do with 9 F35 a handful of Merlin and a giant floating target in some distant Ocean.....

Personally I'd prefer 150 AESA Typhoon, a properly funded flying training system, some C130s and a AEW platform.

Each to their own I guess 🤷

Video Mixdown

25th Mar 2021, 23:01

If the Suez Canal were still to be blocked when QNLZ is due to depart for the Far East, would they postpone the sailing, or send it via the South Atlantic instead?

Asturias56

26th Mar 2021, 10:02

It was built in modules - just disassemble it and send by President Xi's Belt & Road

Video Mixdown

26th Mar 2021, 10:50

It was built in modules - just disassemble it and send by President Xi's Belt & Road
Typical spotter comment.

Asturias56

26th Mar 2021, 11:33

An attempt at humour dear boy - think what would happen if the QE was east of Suez when the canal was shut...................... embarrassing? certainly inconvenient................

ORAC

26th Mar 2021, 11:46

Great opportunity for a cocktail party off Cape Town.....

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/512x385/image_3bb0ac444e4739c9671b0d5d122fedbd94c9a11c.jpeg

WE Branch Fanatic

26th Mar 2021, 12:36

The Suez closure is a major international issue - with costs and delays caused to merchant shipping shipping having to route around Africa and the Cape of Good Hope, which will also not be without security issues. Naval Forces and things like military logistics can also do this to, but it adds delays.

The CSG21 deployment, however, was supposed to include the Mediterranean After an Exercise called Strike Warrior, which will involve interaction with NATO partners and the task/strike group doing its stuff for NATO, F-35Bs/Lightnings doing air defence and being controlled by Type 45s and other warships, and the ASW Merlins providing constant ASW in conjunction with frigates. They may also been some sorties dropping bombs on ground targets, or exercises putting Royal Marines ashore. The group will then go South to the Mediterranean, for exercises as part of NATO as well as diplomatic visits, before proceeding East of Suez. Somewhere she will probably like up with the US and other forces involved in Exercise Steadfast Defender 21, an important NATO reinforcement exercise. This might be West of Scotland, or it might be in the Mediterranean as the exercise is not just across the Atlantic but right to Southern/Eastern Europe.

NATO is finished if it cannot reinforce by sea, So I think it very unlikely that the Mediterranean would be bypassed. The STDE exercise was postponed from last year due to COVID-19, but life (and deterrence) has to go on.

Video Mixdown

26th Mar 2021, 13:40

Asturias56

26th Mar 2021, 14:17

If they go south I'd assume they'd be diverted to the Falklands for a visit....................

etudiant

26th Mar 2021, 16:06

NATO

NATO is finished if it cannot reinforce by sea, So I think it very unlikely that the Mediterranean would be bypassed. The STDE exercise was postponed from last year due to COVID-19, but life (and deterrence) has to go on.

This seems just wrong to me.
European NATO at this point has an overmatch of some size, in population, economically, technically and also militarily versus Russia.
The European core of NATO is Britain, Spain, France and Germany, with a 'glacis' provided by Poland and the Ukraine, would be a very tough nut for Russia to crack at this point..
I very much believe in prudence, but this seems like rear view mirror planning, dating back to the Fulda Gap days.

Surely a competent national leadership should focus on the new challenges posed by China rather than rehashing 75 year old European issues.

Imagegear

26th Mar 2021, 16:50

Aaawwww ORAC,

You shouldn't have put that piccy up, I can see my old home....:( in the days when I could walk up and down Lion's Head in half a day.

IG

Asturias56

26th Mar 2021, 16:58

etudiant

26th Mar 2021, 17:05

" a competent national leadership should focus on the new challenges posed by China "

the problem is that China is a very long way away from Europe. I , personally, don't think that Russia is planning a major action in Europe but they would be happy to retake Belarus and Ukraine and those pesky Balts if the chance was there (not all at once - just as & when the opportunity occurs).

China isn't a direct threat and never can be a direct threat - they can take Taiwan and cause all sorts of problems in the S China Sea but to 99% of Europeans that's not a real threat

China is eating Europe's lunch, gradually displacing local production with cheaper Chinese alternatives.
Afaik, the opium wars started for that same reason, the trade balance got so bad it was cheaper to have a war to even things up.
Leadership is supposed to consider the future, rather than to revisit the past. Maybe we need younger leaders for that reason?

WE Branch Fanatic

28th Mar 2021, 21:57

This seems just wrong to me.
European NATO at this point has an overmatch of some size, in population, economically, technically and also militarily versus Russia.
The European core of NATO is Britain, Spain, France and Germany, with a 'glacis' provided by Poland and the Ukraine, would be a very tough nut for Russia to crack at this point..
I very much believe in prudence, but this seems like rear view mirror planning, dating back to the Fulda Gap days.

Surely a competent national leadership should focus on the new challenges posed by China rather than rehashing 75 year old European issues.

NATO is nothing without the Atlantic connection. This is worrying about the neighbourhood first.

Anyway - looking at Global Britain in a competitive age (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/969402/The_Integrated_Review_of_Security__Defence__Development_and_ Foreign_Policy.pdf):

Para 17 of the introduction

The UK is a European country with global interests, as an open economy and a maritime trading nation with a large diaspora. Our future prosperity will be enhanced by deepening our economic connections with dynamic parts of the world such as the Indo-Pacific, Africa and the Gulf, as well as trade with Europe. The precondition for Global Britain is the safety of our citizens at home and the security of the Euro-Atlantic region, where the bulk of the UK’s security focus will remain. As we look further afield, the future success of Global Britain requires us to understand the precise nature and extent of British strengths and the integrated offer we bring in other parts of the world. It is an approach that puts diplomacy first. As we engage more in the Indo-Pacific, for example, we will adapt to the regional balance of power and respect the interests of others – and seek to work with existing structures such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

Para 31 iii

Strengthening security and defence at home and overseas: we will work with allies and partners to address challenges to our security in the physical world and online. NATO will remain the foundation of collective security in our home region of the Euro-Atlantic, where Russia remains the most acute threat to our security. We will also place greater emphasis on building our capacity and that of like-minded nations around the world in responding to a growing range of transnational state threats,1 radicalisation and terrorism, SOC and weapons proliferation.

Moving into the report main body:

Page 36 - There will be significant areas of geopolitical and geoeconomic continuity in the 2020s: the US will remain an economic, military and diplomatic superpower, and the UK’s most important strategic ally. The Euro-Atlantic region will remain critical to the UK’s security and prosperity; partnerships beyond the immediate European neighbourhood will also remain important. Russia will remain the most acute direct threat to the UK, and the US will continue to ask more from its allies in Europe in sharing the burden of collective security.

Overall, however, the distribution of global political and economic power – both within and between states, and between regions – will continue to change, with direct and indirect implications for UK interests. By 2030, it is likely that the world will have moved further towards multipolarity, with the geopolitical and economic centre of gravity moving eastward towards the Indo-Pacific.

Page 29 - Proliferation of CBRN weapons, advanced conventional weapons and novel military technologies will increase the risk and intensity of conflict and pose significant challenges to strategic stability. The advantages offered by high-tech capabilities may be eroded by affordable, easily-available, low-tech threats such as drones and improvised explosive devices. Opportunistic states will increasingly seek strategic advantage through exploiting and undermining democratic systems and open economies. Russia will be more active around the wider European neighbourhood, and Iran and North Korea will continue to destabilise their regions. The significant impact of China’s military modernisation and growing international assertiveness within the Indo-Pacific region and beyond will pose an increasing risk to UK interests.

Page 64 - China’s growing international stature is by far the most significant geopolitical factor in the world today, with major implications for British values and interests and for the structure and shape of the international order. The fact that China is an authoritarian state, with different values to ours, presents challenges for the UK and our allies. China will contribute more to global growth than any other country in the next decade with benefits to the global economy. China and the UK both benefit from bilateral trade and investment, but China also presents the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.

We will require a robust diplomatic framework for this relationship that allows us to manage disagreements, defend our values and preserve space for cooperation where our interests align. China is an increasingly important partner in tackling global challenges like pandemic preparedness, biodiversity and climate change. We will continue to pursue a positive economic relationship, including deeper trade links and more Chinese investment in the UK. At the same time, we will increase protection of our CNI, institutions and sensitive technology, and strengthen the resilience of our critical supply chains, so that we can engage with confidence. We will not hesitate to stand up for our values and our interests where they are threatened, or when China acts in breach of existing agreements. The UK has responded to China’s actions in Hong Kong by creating a new immigration route for British Nationals (Overseas) and their eligible family members and dependents, and to China’s human rights violations in Xinjiang through measures to ensure that British organisations are neither complicit in nor profiting from them.

Page 93 - [We will] Deploy more of our naval assets across the world to protect shipping lanes and uphold freedom of navigation. The Joint Maritime Security Centre will support this, strengthening operational maritime coordination across government. The Royal Navy’s Maritime Component Command in Bahrain will continue to ensure the flow of trade in the Gulf, including through support to part of the new International Maritime Security Construct.

BTW I have edited my post at the top of this page to add context to the mention of ASW and helicopters.

Asturias56

29th Mar 2021, 08:15

The Atlantic Connection allows Europe to get defence on the cheap - etudiant is correct - the EU alone is a much bigger economy & has more people than Russia. They could easily match everything - they even have SSBN's

And you have the Brits & Norwegians as well...........

airsound

31st Mar 2021, 15:31

RAFEngO74to09

3rd Apr 2021, 17:37

Launch & recovery systems being looked at for UAVs - but not CATOBAR for fighter weights.

UK considering carrier based drones for aerial refuelling (ukdefencejournal.org.uk) (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-considering-carrier-based-drones-for-aerial-refuelling/)

Royal Navy looking at fixed-wing carrier based drone for AEW (ukdefencejournal.org.uk) (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-looking-at-fixed-wing-carrier-based-drone-for-aew/)

BEagle

3rd Apr 2021, 22:57

Surely AirTanker has the monopoly on UK AAR?

Ho hum..........

Asturias56

4th Apr 2021, 08:07

Going to need a bigger catapult Beagle.................

airsound

9th Apr 2021, 10:44

News from the MoD Defence Secretary Ben Wallace today hosted Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar on board the UK’s aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales.
Delighted to see that, although HMS Prince of Wales is still busy baling out in Pompey, at least her ATCPFA* is fully operational. I hope the minister was duly impressed.

airsound
* Advanced tactical cocktail party functional area

WE Branch Fanatic

9th Apr 2021, 23:47

UK MoD announces that the Royal Netherlands Navy frigate HNLMS Evertsen will join the UK Carrier Strike Group for the duration of its inaugural deployment – from the North Atlantic, through to the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and on to the Indo-Pacific.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-carrier-strike-group-to-sail-with-netherlands-frigate-on-2021-deployment?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_source=26a23f48-1845-41e9-96dd-1a5656da5e0e&utm_content=immediately

airsound

You forgot this bit from the link:

The strike group will undertake a range of operations and training with allies and partners, including maritime missions with NATO in the Mediterranean and Coalition operations in the Middle East.

Whilst mentioning the MOD news story about the Turkish Defence Minister being hosted aboard (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/turkish-defence-minister-hosted-on-board-hms-prince-of-wales)HMS Prince of Wales, you forgot this bit:

Turkey is an important NATO Ally and partner for the UK in upholding security in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions.

Join the dots. By the way I believe that both carriers are pretty much ready for sea, having had modifications to prevent problems with flooding. HMS Queen Elizabeth has also had a number of new systems fitted, including close range weapons and Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainers:

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1380242994205442056

Asturias56

10th Apr 2021, 07:15

"sTurkey is an important NATO Ally and partner for the UK in upholding security in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions."

Over the past few years I'm not sure the Americans would agree WEBF -canceled their subscription to the F35 remember after they bought Russian?

airsound

10th Apr 2021, 14:03

WEBF - many thanks for reminding me of the frailty of my memory. You forgot this bit from the link: and you forgot this bit:
But for once, I actually didn’t. Rather than quoting the whole lengthy news release on each occasion, I merely quoted the bits I thought were noteworthy. I thought having the Royal Netherlands Navy along was interesting - but that HMLZ working with NATO allies and the Coalition was less surprising.

Equally, I imagine the news that Turkey is an important ally would not come as a surprise to most PPRuNers - although in that respect I’m inclined to agree with Asturias.

Now, I did forget something on another thread, but I’m apologising for that. And I suspect it won’t be the last. So feel free to keep me up to the mark when I do actually forget. Just not on this occasion.

airsound

Asturias56

10th Apr 2021, 14:19

Of course there's another explanation

turkey is a major ship-breaking location - maybe the Turkish Defence Minster was over to negotiate a price for all the escorts the RN is about to lay off (which is crazy IMHO)

WE Branch Fanatic

12th Apr 2021, 18:01

Airsound

Fair enough - but given all the talk of deploying the carrier group to the Far East I thought it worth mentioning the way the deployment will include NATO activities and coalition operations in the Middle East. By the way, HMS Prince of Wales will soon return to sea (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-prince-of-wales-operational-again-by-may/).

Watch this space!

A56

Actually we are only losing two - fewer than many predicted. HMS Monmouth has been in a state of very low readiness for a while now, awaiting refit with many systems stripped for spares and a skeleton crew. HMS Montrose is currently forward deployed in the Middle East and will not return to the UK for some time - next year I think. It is sad to see them go, but better to put the money into keeping the rest of the Type 23s going (in some cases until the middle of the next decade), and recruiting more people.

I would not be surprised if one of them is not used as a static training vessel in the same way that HMS Bristol was for many years.

WE Branch Fanatic

14th Apr 2021, 18:12

Some of you might be interested in a couple of discussions over on ARRSE:

The first is about the development of the aircraft carrier in the First World War. Putting seaplanes into the water took time, and often damaged the aircraft on landing. Launching them from a flying off deck or from a platform on a ship's bow allowed aircraft to be launched rapidly, but recovering them aboard a moving ship proved to be very challenging. Initially the tried to use the same flying off deck that had been built on the forecastle of HMS Furious, but it needed the aircraft to be pulled down and restrained. Squadron Commander Edwin Dunning did ;and aboard her in 1917, be he was killed in a repeat attempt. It has been shown that a landing deck was needed - so Furious was refitted again Later work and trials on the Isle of Grain also developed arrestor equipment.

It was found that landing was very difficult, Despite this operational sorties were flown, and further experimentation at the National Physics Laboratory showed that the bridge disrupted airflow. The solution was to have a flush deck - which HMS Argus had when she was commissioned just after the armistice.

The Evolution of the Aircraft Carrier - up to 1918 (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/the-evolution-of-the-aircraft-carrier-up-to-1918.304327/)

The second is about things still in living memory - the Second World War. What was a simple tribute to the Swordfish crews from 825 NAS who died during the 'Channel Dash', it soon turned a wider discussion of the aircraft carriers and the Fleet Air Arm from 1938 to 1945.Huge problems were caused by the was naval aviation had been largely under RAF control until 1937, as were things like aircraft procurement, weapon development, tactics, and training - lessons for today and the last decade or so?

Despite that our carriers operated in every theatre that the RN did, with escort carriers providing vital defence against enemy aircraft and U boats for the Atlantic and Arctic convoys, and carrerborne fighters and attack aircraft playing a vital role in the Mediterranean and later the Far East. There were things which seem familiar today, such as fighters being controlled by anti aircraft cruisers which would them shoot and enemy aircraft the fighters did not get. Just as fighters being controlled by shipborne controllers via radio using radar information is in many ways similar to modern operations, the use of radar equipped Swordfish ahead of a convoy and being cued by ships proving long range detection with HF/DF (High Frequency Direction Finding) is not dissimilar to the ASW operations of today, with frigates providing long range detection and helicopters providing localisation and attack.

The Anniversary of The Channel Dash - 1942 - and the wider RN Fleet Air Arm during the Second World War (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/the-anniversary-of-the-channel-dash-1942-and-the-wider-rn-fleet-air-arm-during-the-second-world-war.303809/)

Asturias56

18th Apr 2021, 09:32

Lyneham Lad posted this in the thread about E Europe - when the T45 and the T23 "peel-off" from the Carrier Group to go to the Black Sea what is going to replace them?

Article in The Sunday Times:-
British warships head for Black Sea as Russian troops mass on Ukrainian border (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b37169f6-9f7a-11eb-a122-2e92eaf1ca26?shareToken=bd1815eff07e063ed1571b5ba9699664)

Quote:
Royal Navy warships will sail for the Black Sea next month as tensions continue to rise between Ukrainian and Russian forces.

Putting the ships off the coast of Ukraine is intended to show solidarity with Kiev and Nato allies in the region after the President Biden decided to cancel the deployment of two American warships to the Black Sea last week for fear of escalating the crisis over the massing of Russian troops.

One Type 45 destroyer armed with anti-aircraft missiles and an anti-submarine Type 23 frigate will peel off from the Royal Navy’s carrier task group in the Mediterranean and head through the Bosphorus into the Black Sea, according to senior naval sources.

RAF F-35B Lightning stealth jets and Merlin submarine-hunting helicopters are to stand ready on the task group’s flag ship, the carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, to support the warships in the Black Sea should they be threatened by Russian warships, submarines or aircraft. HMS Queen Elizabeth has to stay in the Mediterranean because an international treaty prohibits aircraft carriers from entering the Black Sea.

The Royal Navy announced in February, before the current crisis, that the carrier’s supporting warships and aircraft would carry out the missions into the Black Sea as part of HMS Queen Elizabeth’s deployment to the Far East. The Ministry of Defence confirmed on Friday that the naval foray would go ahead despite the US decision to keep its warships out of the crisis zone.

“Operational planning continues and this still includes the Black Sea activity,” said a senior defence source. “The US decision will have no bearing on Carrier Strike Group’s 2021 plans.”

This apparent divergence between London and Washington follows the admission on Friday by General Sir Nick Carter, chief of defence staff, that the British government disagreed with Biden’s decision to withdraw all US and Nato troops from Afghanistan by September.

Tension has been rising since Moscow ordered a troop build-up near Ukraine’s eastern border late last month. Russian and Ukrainian gunboats were involved in a stand-off near the Crimean coast on Thursday.

RAF RC-135 Rivet Joint eavesdropping aircraft have flown eight missions over Ukraine to monitor Russian military communications since the start of the month. Four RAF Typhoon fighter jets will fly to Romania from RAF Lossiemouth this week to take part in Nato air policing patrols over the Black Sea, and hundreds of soldiers will head to Ukraine in the summer for a joint exercise, dubbed Cossack Mace, with the country’s border guard paramilitary force.

pr00ne

18th Apr 2021, 18:40

The other Type 45 and the other Type 23, along with participating foreign escorts?

Asturias56

19th Apr 2021, 07:17

I presumed they'd be replacing the ones on detachment - and that almost certainly means non RN vessels as there just aren't any spare locally I bet

hulahoop7

19th Apr 2021, 09:08

The escorts will be pealing off to do local exercises right through the deployment. This just happens to present this type of opportunity. I imagine they will be in and out within a week while the rest of the task group exercises with other NATO vessels in the med.

WE Branch Fanatic

22nd Apr 2021, 20:06

To quote the Times article: ...F-35B Lightning stealth jets and Merlin submarine-hunting helicopters are to stand ready on the task group’s flag ship, the carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, to support the warships in the Black Sea should they be threatened by Russian warships, submarines or aircraft.

A naval task group is comprised of ships than can change position all the time. During the Falklands conflict groups of frigates and destroyers were detached from the main body of the force for things such as naval gunfire support, submarine hunting (alongside carrier based Sea Kings), and supporting special forces. The comment that the Type 23 and Type 45 sent into the Black Sea could be supported by F-35B Lightnings and ASW Merlins from HMS Queen Elizabeth actually makes a nice change from the media always assuming that the task group exists solely to defend the carrier, and so do her aircraft. The Type 45 will control aircraft flying air defence sorties and the frigate will cue and work with the Merlin HM2s from the carrier.

To that end:

https://twitter.com/RNASCuldrose/status/1385183505269862408

Asturias56

23rd Apr 2021, 07:17

WEBF - to "support" operations in the Black Sea the F-35's etc will have to overfly Turkey from the carrier in the Aegean... what if they say no?

idle bystander

23rd Apr 2021, 08:05

@WEBF: A naval task group is comprised of ships than can change position all the time. I think you'll find that either it "comprises ships that can ..." or "is composed of ships that can". Even as a WE they taught you English, surely?

Lordflasheart

23rd Apr 2021, 08:08

...
^^^ Wot Asturias said ^^^ :ok:

One of the (six) Black Sea Fleet Kilos will have surfaced within range, given them the bird and disappeared back into its black hole before any distant support could arrive. Even if no threats were issued and no shots were fired, it would have the potential to be publicly embarrassing and enormously demoralising.

CSG assets would likely be distracted by or pre-occupied with the Kilo(s) from Tartus. Does Blackadder have a cunning plan ?

LFH
...

WE Branch Fanatic

23rd Apr 2021, 11:17

A56/Lordflasheart

I was making the point that the writer seems to have finally accepted that carrier based aircraft often support other forces - such as detached ships doing ASW, a force clearing mines, amphibious forces, logistics shipping. This was intended as a general point, but one very relevant within the NATO sphere. The Black Sea is a very unlikely theatre for carrier operations, due to geographical constraints, and the Montreux convention. However, the Black Sea is only part of the Mediterranean region. As you note, there are assets based in Syria to be kept an eye on. We do not know exactly what exercises and operations the CSG21 group will participate in.

idle bystander

'comprised of' is considered acceptable usage by the Oxford English Dictionary, and has been used by writers of note for centuries.

Asturias56

23rd Apr 2021, 15:43

""The comment that the Type 23 and Type 45 sent into the Black Sea could be supported by F-35B Lightnings and ASW Merlins from HMS Queen Elizabeth actually makes a nice change"

Sorry to be pedantic but you say the ships in the Black Sea will supported by F35's etc from the QE - but you haven't said how this is possible if Turkey says no to overflights

Lordflasheart

23rd Apr 2021, 18:30

...
^^^ Wot Asturias said ^^^ :ok:

Actually it was the talented Mr Ripley who initially articulated the idea of CSG backup (from a distance of 500 miles plus.) Even if fully-armed dip clearance had been pre-arranged, it would take an hour or more for Dave to arrive at the nightmare scene of the crime. To find what ? DIW at best and two big oil slicks at worst. The organic Merlins would be trying to find dry land and the backup helos would be out of fuel on arrival.

If you google Tim Ripley who penned the jingoistic bit in the Sunday Times, he offers his email address for anyone wishing to correspond with him. Ask him how he thinks playing tag with three or four Kilos would end up.

The Cousins have realised there is a sensible way to avoid all this.

LFH
...

ORAC

24th Apr 2021, 08:38

Asturias56

24th Apr 2021, 09:04

Asturias56,

They could route via Greece and refuel and hold ground alert in Romania - the RAF currently has a Typhoon detachment providing QRA fighter cover out of Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase which, presumably, could assist.

Of course - but then it that case they could just fly out direct from the UK - the carrier is irrelevant (shades of the arguments in the '60's) if they have to use land bases

Asturias56

26th Apr 2021, 06:59

Sir Max Hastings on Radio4 BBC this morning rubbishing the Qe class as "totally irrelevant" and saying they should be sold off or mothballed.......................

idle bystander

26th Apr 2021, 08:18

Sir Max Hastings on Radio4 BBC this morning rubbishing the Qe class as "totally irrelevant" and saying they should be sold off or mothballed.
I'm a great admirer of Max Hastings' writing, but of one thing it's clear - his understanding of maritime warfare is meagre to non-existent.

Not_a_boffin

26th Apr 2021, 09:15

Sir Max Hastings on Radio4 BBC this morning rubbishing the Qe class as "totally irrelevant" and saying they should be sold off or mothballed.......................

Hastings believes anything not painted green and answering to the name "tank" is irrelevant. He also has a downer on the RN because he wasn't treated in the way he believes he merits on the way to a war nearly forty years ago. He particularly fears the carriers because they are perceived by those in green as being where all the money went that should have been spent on new tanks, arty etc. Whereas in fact, a relatively simple bit of research would tell him the money was spent on extensive Land UOR, abortive land vehicles recapitalisation, Typhoon and the submarine programmes.

As noted above maritime expertise is not one of his strong suits.

Asturias56

26th Apr 2021, 12:46

He did sound a very bitter man........................

Imagegear

26th Apr 2021, 14:21

Does he plan to drive his tanks to the Black Sea?

IG

Asturias56

26th Apr 2021, 15:21

Well he can of course - Eurotunnel and then a hell of a fuel & toll bill.................

Where Hastings was correct IMHO was that deploying a QE to the Fareast isn't going to frighten President Xi

RAFEngO74to09

26th Apr 2021, 16:31

(4) Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 on Twitter: "The Carrier Strike Group 2021 is a potent demonstration of the UK’s formidable naval and air power, and the physical embodiment of the UK’s ambitions on the global stage. This is Global Britain in action 🌎🇬🇧 https://t.co/v2k51BuVMo" / Twitter

Navaleye

26th Apr 2021, 17:11

Especially as the RAF can only scrape together 8 aircraft. Rubbish really.

Lyneham Lad

26th Apr 2021, 17:23

No US Marine Corps F-35B's going along to boost the numbers?

Video Mixdown

26th Apr 2021, 17:25

Well he can of course - Eurotunnel and then a hell of a fuel & toll bill.................

Where Hastings was correct IMHO was that deploying a QE to the Fareast isn't going to frighten President Xi
Who said anything about trying to frighten Putin or Xi? The purpose of the deployment is to renew and reinforce the UK's relations with our friends and allies all over the world by exercising with their own armed forces, as well as showcasing British design and technology and hosting high profile diplomatic events. Royal Navy capital ships have been doing this for very many years, delivering the type of soft power that is beyond the brutalist and largely friendless regimes of Russia and China.

Not_a_boffin

26th Apr 2021, 17:43

No US Marine Corps F-35B's going along to boost the numbers?

VMFA 211 embarking next week, apparently 10 cabs. Work-up in Ex Strike Warrior, prior to heading East. Delivery schedule of our F35s constrained by budget profile, will be easier next year and the year after..

Asturias56

26th Apr 2021, 17:49

See WEBF's post #6135 above quoting form the Defence review (his emphasis)

" Russia will be more active around the wider European neighbourhood, and Iran and North Korea will continue to destabilise their regions. The significant impact of China’s military modernisation and growing international assertiveness within the Indo-Pacific region and beyond will pose an increasing risk to UK interests.

Page 64 - China’s growing international stature is by far the most significant geopolitical factor in the world today, with major implications for British values and interests and for the structure and shape of the international order. The fact that China is an authoritarian state, with different values to ours, presents challenges for the UK and our allies........................ but China also presents the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.

.......................We will not hesitate to stand up for our values and our interests where they are threatened, or when China acts in breach of existing agreements. The UK has responded to China’s actions in Hong Kong by creating a new immigration route for British Nationals (Overseas) and their eligible family members and dependents, and to China’s human rights violations in Xinjiang through measures to ensure that British organisations are neither complicit in nor profiting from them.

Page 93 - [We will] Deploy more of our naval assets across the world to protect shipping lanes and uphold freedom of navigation. The Joint Maritime Security Centre will support this, strengthening operational maritime coordination across government. The Royal Navy’s Maritime Component Command in Bahrain will continue to ensure the flow of trade in the Gulf, including through support to part of the new International Maritime Security Construct.

henra

27th Apr 2021, 17:56

Hastings believes anything not painted green and answering to the name "tank" is irrelevant.
Maybe someone should send him a link to some videos from Aserbaidschan?!

Timelord

27th Apr 2021, 19:48

Especially as the RAF can only scrape together 8 aircraft. Rubbish really.

I think you mean: “ Especially as the joint RN/RAF force can only........”

WE Branch Fanatic

27th Apr 2021, 23:46

The Lightning Force is not deploying in its entirety - as that would cause problems with training and growing the force. The same also applies for other elements such as the Merlin. We should remember that this is not an all out response to a crisis. HMS Prince of Wales will be doing trials and training soon and will need some cabs. There are other operational activities too - like NATO activities such as BALTOPS and in the Atlantic and Arctic.

According to this description of the deployment (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/april/26/210426-csg21-deployment):The Carrier Strike Group will participate in NATO exercises such as Exercise Steadfast Defender, and provide support to NATO Operation Sea Guardian and security operations in the Black Sea.

In total, units from the group visit more than 40 countries and undertake in excess of 70 engagements, visits, air exercises and operations.

Also on Euro Atlantic security:

https://twitter.com/smrmoorhouse/status/1386734979481227265

Merlin helicopters arrive on HMS Queen Elizabeth (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/april/27/210427-merlins-arrive-on-carrier)...

In all, seven Merlin helicopters (three with Crowsnest and four for anti-submarine warfare) from Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose in Cornwall will join the carrier and will be the airborne guardians of the strike group.

Between them, they will defend the carrier and her escorts from threats below the waves, on the surface and in the air.

I was initially a tiny bit confused by the wording, as Crowsnest is supposed to be a role fit that is fitted to the HM2 as and when. If the Crowsnest kit is removed and the ASW gear put back, the aircraft goers back to being a Pinger. I am not sure if one of the frigates is going to carry a Merlin, but I do recall that during WESTLANT 19 three Merlin HM2s aboard Queen Elizabeth and a Type 23 with towed array sonar and a Merlin were able to provide continuous ASW cover for the carrier and her small group, but covering a larger area demands more frigates and more Pingers. It does reinforce the case for 820 NAS taking nine Merlin HM2s to sea, so if three are doing the ASaCs role, there are six dedicated to ASW, with Jungly Merlin HC4s relieving them of things such as SAR and utility roles. Six dedicated ASW cabs with dipping sonar etc, plus another one or two flying from frigates.

They did manage to put nine aboard HMS Illustrious for Exercise Deep Blue (https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-helicopter/merlin-mk2-helicopters-complete-exercise-deep-blue/) in June/July 2014, with another on the accompanying frigate.

With the utility and SAR taskings being picked up largely by Jungly HC4s, six aircraft with a five hour endurance can probably achieve the same level of ASW coverage as a squadron of nine aircraft with a four hour endurance (the old Sea King), with those nine also having to perform utility roles as often keeping a helicopter on standby for SAR.

RAFEngO74to09

28th Apr 2021, 01:22

VMFA-211 F-35Bs have arrived at RAF Lakenheath.

3rd Marine Aircraft Wing on Twitter: "VMFA-211, the “Wake Island Avengers”, recently touched down at RAF Lakenheath, England, and will soon be embarking aboard @HMSQNLZ for the UK’s Carrier Strike Group 21 deployment. https://t.co/AGYWbdMfpJ" / Twitter

Navaleye

28th Apr 2021, 12:29

I would have thought it would make more sense to put a Merlin on each of the T23s and a Wildcat on the T45s. Interesting that Sea Venom will be carried. I didn't notice they declared IOC.

Widger

28th Apr 2021, 12:59

Point of order Mr Chairman,

Only Wobbleheads, not Stovies, drive cabs.

Asturias56

28th Apr 2021, 15:28

"The Lightning Force is not deploying in its entirety - as that would cause problems "

and you don't put all your very very expensive eggs in one basket either....................

Not_a_boffin

28th Apr 2021, 15:42

"The Lightning Force is not deploying in its entirety - as that would cause problems "

and you don't put all your very very expensive eggs in one basket either....................

There are 18 jets in the UK. Eight are going on CSG21, a small number will be in depth and the remainder have to support 207 and the generation of 809NAS. Much more to do with build up of force.

WE Branch Fanatic

28th Apr 2021, 16:09

Just a few extra thoughts:

1. Ten Crowsnest kits being ordered. We are not going to be operating them all at once, but I think that some see the kits as a one for one replacement for the Sea King 7.

2. All the Merlin HM2s are having the modifications to carry the kit. Does that help explain why 820 NAS is not taking nine aircraft?

3. As this Italian guy notes (https://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.com/2011/05/merlin-family-in-uk-service.html), the Merlin was designed to have modular system so that rapid reconfiguration is possible:

Without disembarking the consoles (but disembarking the sonobuoys launchers) and with full four men crew, the Merlin HM1 can lift a 3400 kg payload, or carry 8 stretchers plus paramedic personnel. It can carry ten equipped soldiers, and with a L118 Light Gun under slung at the cargo hook it can stay in the air for a good hour, deploying the gun up to 100 km away from the ship. Up to 16 men can be carried in transfer flights. Disembarking the dipping sonar to free up cabin space when ASW is not a priority, 8 seats plus a rack of 4 stretchers can be fitted.

4. He also states that the carriers normally carried six Merlins, alongside a flight of three ASaCs Sea Kings, Sea Harriers (until March 2006) and Harrier GR7/9s (until late 2010), and a utility/ SAR Sea King from 810/771.

Normally, when a flight of six Merlins deploy on a UK carrier, it comes from this squadron, which is probably the most active ASW unit of the whole fleet.

5. Why six ASW cabs? The Merlin replaced the Sea King in the ASW role, and the CVS took squadrons of nine to provide two aircraft on station around the clock, plus SAR and utility roles. If we consider that one of those Sea Kings would have been doing utility roles of parked near the ramp on SAR standby, can six Merlins provide as much time on station as eight Sea Kings?

For Merlin - On an anti-submarine warfare active dipping mission over a radius of operation of 50 nautical miles, there is sufficient fuel in the internal fuel tanks to provide 190 minutes on station with a 20-minute fuel reserve. Fully armed on an anti-submarine warfare passive sonobouy mission, the helicopter time on station is 210 minutes at a radius of operation of 100 nautical miles, and 90 minutes at a radius of operation 200 nautical miles.

How does that compare with its predecessor - and rivals? I became mathematically confused when I tried to use Little's Theorem to work out how many helicopters you need to maintain two aircraft on station, 100 nm from the carrier with a) Merlin with five hour endurance, or b) Sea King with four hour endurance? Perhaps someone clever like can help? Does have 25% more endurance mean that 25% less aircraft are needed for the same coverage, or am I being simplistic, as the the sortie will include the outward transit flight, the time on station, and the return transit. Although Merlin is faster than the Sea King, the transit times will not be much different, so things are not quite as linear as I thought.

If we assume that the transit times are the same, then it does appear linear...

Or are we still planning on a rotary wing force (aboard the carrier) of nine ASW Merlins, plus Crowsnest, plus Junglies?

Not_a_boffin

28th Apr 2021, 16:37

Or are we still planning on a rotary wing force (aboard the carrier) of nine ASW Merlins, plus Crowsnest, plus Junglies?

I suspect the "plan" is for however many HM2 the MHF @ Culdrose and HC4 CHF @ VL can generate.

SLXOwft

28th Apr 2021, 18:14

I would have thought it would make more sense to put a Merlin on each of the T23s and a Wildcat on the T45s. Interesting that Sea Venom will be carried. I didn't notice they declared IOC.

One wonders what the available numbers of HM2s are. 824 nominally have 8 for training purposes, several are/were involved in Crowsnest D&T, last I heard some are being given the necessary Crowsnest mods and others undergoing normal maintenance. I thought that following their absorbing of 829 the Tigers were the largest Merlin HM.2 unit, so why indeed no Merlin ships flights going along? As part of 42 Commando will be onboard, why no 847 presence or indeed no AH-64s ? (He asked naively - especially with the majority of the latter having gone to Huntsville for parts recovery. )

Four 815 NAS Wildcats will be embarked in HMSs Kent, Richmond, Defender and Diamond. "Bringing Martlet, Sea Venom, M3M, Snipers and Stingray to the strike group to protect HMSQNLZ."
.
Earlier this month HMS Seahawk tweeted a short video for consumption by Joe/Jo Public narrated by 820's SOBS (Baggers) Lt Cdr Phil Clark. I gather they will have a crew of 1P & 2Os like their predecessors.
https://tinyurl.com/j4cae7et

WE Branch Fanatic

28th Apr 2021, 22:25

I am still convinced that we would be able to send more Merlins to sea if we did not need some for the forthcoming flying trials of HMS Prince of Wales, and a number of them were not being modified to be able to take the Crowsnest kit.

Just as well that they have been practising a quick turnaround:

https://twitter.com/RNASCuldrose/status/1372264483968716804

Anyway - Little's theorem is probably not useful for numbers of ASW helicopters as it deals with stationary systems. I have struggled with why only three aircraft were needed to keep an AEW Sea King on station all the time, but nine were needed to keep two ASW cabs on station at all times. Then I reread the link (https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-helicopter/merlin-mk2-helicopters-complete-exercise-deep-blue/) about Exercise Deep Blue.

Throughout the Exercise, the Merlin aircraft were embarked on HMS Illustrious. Aircrews and engineers worked round the clock alongside pilots and aircrew operating on a non-stop ‘sleep-eat-fly-sleep’ rotation to support three aircraft aloft at all times with two on ready status.

If you did away with the ones on alert on deck, you could maintain two on station with six aircraft. I have to say I wonder why you need ones on alert on deck if you have Merlin equipped frigates - what am I missing?

dctyke

30th Apr 2021, 20:13

Will personal be away for over 6 months or will there be a changeover halfway through?

WE Branch Fanatic

1st May 2021, 17:22

CSG21 has started.

https://twitter.com/smrmoorhouse/status/1388520531100581890

SLXOwft/N_a_b

With respect to the Merlin HM2 - I believe that the whole fleet is undergoing modifications at Yeovil, which will take a few away from the ready fleet, and HMS Prince Of Wales put to sea yesterday. Does she needs to embark some for whatever trials and training that she will being doing? As for 847 and Junglies in general, we are sending an amphibious force on NATO operations - so I espect that they will take a few Cabs. Maybe even some frigate borne Merlin HM2s?

https://twitter.com/TML_2_4/status/1388474895638700035

dctyke

Ships' companies do not changeover on this type of deployment.

downsizer

1st May 2021, 17:52

I think he means the 617 pers....

WE Branch Fanatic

1st May 2021, 19:11

Remember that 617 is jointly RN and RAF - including the CO/XO roles.

This (news from September 2020) suggests that six dedicated ASW cabs will be the norm:

https://twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1301603346982285314

The RN website has a news page on her forthcoming exercise: Carrier Strike Group prepares for final test (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/may/01/210501-csg-sails-for-strike-warrior)

The exercise, which will run for two weeks, will see the task group pitted against warships from NATO’s Standing Maritime Group 1 in waters off north-west Scotland to prove it is capable of undertaking high intensity operations against the most demanding adversaries.

In other words, an opposing force of fully armed surface warships, and submarines (quiet NATO SSKs), and aircraft. It will not be the last contribution to NATO made by the CSG in the next few weeks and months.

pr00ne

2nd May 2021, 09:56

WEBF,

The current CO is jointly RAF and RN?

What does that mean?

WE Branch Fanatic

2nd May 2021, 12:08

Video Mixdown

2nd May 2021, 12:20

Post amended. I meant that each squadron will have both dark blue and light blue personnel in senior roles. The current boss of 617 Sqn is RN, the future CO of 809 NAS could be RAF. Likewise does it matter if a repair was overseen by PO Bloggs or Sgt Bloggs?
Out of interest, do embarked Squadron personnel concentrate on servicing/maintenance of aircraft with deck operations handled by the ship's crew, or is it more mixed?

dctyke

3rd May 2021, 07:19

Post amended. I meant that each squadron will have both dark blue and light blue personnel in senior roles. The current boss of 617 Sqn is RN, the future CO of 809 NAS could be RAF. Likewise does it matter if a repair was overseen by PO Bloggs or Sgt Bloggs?

PO Bloggs won’t be bothered as he knew what he was in for when he signed on the dotted line. It might matter to Sgt Bloggs after over six months away at sea.

downsizer

3rd May 2021, 08:20

PO Bloggs won’t be bothered as he knew what he was in for when he signed on the dotted line. It might matter to Sgt Bloggs after over six months away at sea.

I know it's not quite what you mean but at the F308 Offer of Service Interview the airman is told and signs to acknowledge that they may be required to serve alongside the Army or at Sea with the Navy....

Hot 'n' High

4th May 2021, 12:25

....... If you did away with the ones on alert on deck, you could maintain two on station with six aircraft. I have to say I wonder why you need ones on alert on deck if you have Merlin equipped frigates - what am I missing?

Hiya WEBF, always good to see your interest in such matters! https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

You asked if you were missing something as your figures for SK vs Merlin weren't adding up. I think, in some of your analysis, you may not be making correct assumptions which is why your figures don't add up or seem not to make sense to you. In reality, it was all a bit more fluid. Now, where's a PWO(U) and a PWO(A) when you need them!!! https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif I'll give this a go but my memory is, shall we say, a bit iffy!

Based on my time back in CVS SK days, the ASW Screen was based on 4 hour sorties designed to operate a long-term screen against a target difficult to locate (very little other Intel to assist you/provide early warning) and then track/destroy so the idea would be to maintain a continuous 24/7 barrier up-threat supplemented by Towed Array (T/A) and, also, other ASW helos which would only, if available, really jump in to help with a kill if something was detected. That could be a SK from an RFA or even a Lynx (or Wasp!) acting as a weapons carrier. The T/A sort of served as an "Early Warning" system. A SK on an RFA or wherever could also be tasked to perhaps extend the screen but that was independent - the main barrier was run by the CVS Sqdn alone using 3 cabs as the core Screen system.

Sometimes there was only one "on task" at any one time with one out-bound and one in-bound with, maybe, some overlap at handovers. With a buoy screen you could manage that. Other times there were 2 on task the whole time, with one always in transit to/from the CVS. You really did need 2 on task for active "pinging". So it all depended on how far out the screen was and what was happening etc, etc, etc. We could plod along Ripple-Three Double-Bubble (R-T D-B) for a couple of weeks if needed - tho it was knackering for all inc us Engineers.

The plan was a crew did a double 4 hr rotation .... out - back - RR refuel - out - back - crew change - out ....... etc, etc, etc. Your "alert on deck" generally was for 2nd SAR (as it was mutual SAR between the 3 in the ripple) and to then slot in to the R-T D-B when servicing became due on an A/C in the screen or an A/C went U/S on the Screen. Sometimes we had spares up the ying-yang ...... other times it was more "interesting" shall we say! Other lines were then generated from the additional "S" Cabs for HDS or whatever else was thrown our way but your 3 + a spare we tried not to touch! And you only ever shut down a SK when you really had to - they were happiest just chugging along.

The Baggers never, certainly in my memory, ever did anything approaching that. Why? I think its because ASW is very different to AAW. Certainly in the North Atlantic (main Op area at that time), you would get initial threat warnings for a land-based air strike from friendly nations or maybe a Frigate way out "up threat". So, effectively, you'd run a CAP for very much shorter durations (measured in hours not days) once an initial alarm had been raised. Your Sub threat is much more persistent and difficult to track once the boats were in the Atlantic where they could sit for weeks on end - hence the continuous screen - basically to cover a N Atlantic crossing. Also, operating at greater altitude, the Bags operated closer to the CVS IIR. I know positioning was based on some odd tactical constraints which often meant a Bag would be located in a seemingly odd position. I'll not discuss why here! https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies2/eusa_naughty.gif

Also, there are other reasons why the SK and Merlin read-across may not work exactly. I don't have reliability figures but the Merlin-generation technology should (one hopes as that was the plan!!!!) be more reliable than the poor old SK so you need fewer assets to maintain a given Flypro. It could, as several have alluded to, be as simple as we have far less Merlins than SKs so they are spread more thinly - again, probably based on increased reliability predictions when Merlin was first being defined (plus the reduced ASW focus after the Cold War ended - cue another hot debate!!!), and maybe ££££s also caused numbers to be trimmed back (shurrly not!!!).

Anyway, that's what could be screwing up your read-across. As I say, this was all some time ago now so just how I recall things ran from memory. Anyway, hope this helps a bit. Hopefully someone else will chip in if I've got it wrong. :ok:

Cheers, H 'n' H

oldgrubber

5th May 2021, 07:57

H "n" H
I also remember the days of the 9 cab ASW CAG. We would always have one in Min strip, leaving 8 to play with. The routine we worked was "long day, short day" or modified 10 about, I must admit the 8 about the Puff jets worked was not very attractive. we worked this routine from embarkation to disembarkation, and it always made us laugh when the ship would make pipes praising themselves for being in defence watches for "2 days now!" or similar. The baggers (Mk2s) would generally fly when the jets did and they did have an easier time than us. We used to rib them about it, but being from Culdrose, we all knew eachother so it was good natured. That all changed when the mk7 baggers came in and I found myself on an 849 unit, my initial, "this is going to be easy" thoughts were soon dispelled as the capability of the aircraft became known. Lets just say 10 days continuous flying from a pool of 3 aircraft, plus milk/mail collecting, viptax and SAR (the 771 cab was bust) off Somalia was an eye opener.

Hot 'n' High

5th May 2021, 16:32

Ah oldgrubber, I didn't realise it was like that with the Mk 7's. The way the Mk. 2's operated linked to the Stovies is how I remember it. We always enjoyed it when the Stovies called it a day from emulating "Top Gun" and slunk off to their scratchers as we knew the Bags would soon be off to bed too. After that it all became much more "civilised" and we had the whole deck and the LIFTS (Yay!!!) to ourselves. None of this "No you can't use the lifts! The SHARs are on Alert 120 (or similar)!!!!". :ok:

Re Watch systems I know there were always discussions/debates and the "Long Day, Short Day" is the main one I recall. I do find it difficult to recall how such things worked these days such is the passage of time and me with a shocking memory. Re the "R3-DB", clearly the range of the screen from Mum was key as transit times (including the turnrounds) played a big part in maintaining 2 on screen at all times. After a while you just can't achieve it and I do recall times we only had one on the Barrier as SAR cover was always discussed. Working Passive I don't think it was that much of an issue. Tho it did do my head in trying to recall how the "Ripple" worked when playing with bits of paper yesterday. :\

Thankfully, I don't have that problem with maintaining "time on station" over at my Local as I live just over the road from it. My "time on station" vs "transit time" is definitely biased in favour of beer-drinking (COVID rules permitting!). Talking of that - 'ave you seen the time????!!!! Got to Launch!!!!!!!! Lashings off.........!!!!! :E

Cheers, H 'n' H

airsound

5th May 2021, 16:41

tucumseh

5th May 2021, 17:22

H "n" H
That all changed when the mk7 baggers came in and I found myself on an 849 unit, my initial, "this is going to be easy" thoughts were soon dispelled as the capability of the aircraft became known. Lets just say 10 days continuous flying from a pool of 3 aircraft, plus milk/mail collecting, viptax and SAR (the 771 cab was bust) off Somalia was an eye opener.

Interesting that Mk7 actually did SAR. It was a tertiary role, and there was a school of thought that it would never happen, so don't bother - the theory being it would save money in the design. But I left it in, mainly because that part of the programme was a technical and contractual pre-requisite, and any delay would cost us half a million a month in penalties. Another reason was as discussed - uncertainty over Merlin capability. All that was ever said was that 5 Merlins would do the job of 8 SKs. (Hence, around 50 bought). But any assumption about Merlin having better technology, especially in avionics, went out the window when the ISD was missed by about 5-6 years. For example, its comms was older than SK6, which in turn was much older than ASaC and Mk4. I know that in 2001 it was still at a 1984 build standard.

The problem with continuous flying you mention would, in part, be down to the actual requirement being 16 cabs, but capped at 13. And no reserve were allowed. In fact, the RN's endorsement was 10. The extra 3 was purely a MoD(PE) initiative, which I got well and truly clobbered for by one particular beancounter. Luckily an Admiral stepped in and told him to....(obscene Naval term).

Hot 'n' High

5th May 2021, 21:11

Cheerz, H'n'H and oldgrubber. I have no idea what you were talking about for much of your diatribes - but I have much enjoyed them. I specially like the idea of lashings off for the boozer....

airsound, trust me, you are not the first person to accuse us WAFFU's of talking utter nonsense ........ and, sadly, there will be many, many, many after you who will say the same!!!!! All I can say is .......... it's a fair cop, Guv! :ok: But you picked up on the really important bit!!!!!!!!! So "BZ" as we would say!!! :E

Tuc, forgot all about our convo way back on the Mk. 7 fiasco. I did laugh when I got the GFE list across my desk for the Mk. 2 bits to feed into the Mk. 7 Mods Programme. The 2 was UOR if I recall (hence the hand-to-mouth shuffling of things like pallets) so one would have hoped the endorsed requirement for the replacement would have acknowledged those issues. Seemingly, if you manage to survive on a "beg-steal-borrow" Support Policy long enough ..... why not read that forward for the next Fleet?! Good on you/PE for sorting that out! Was that our certain "do the Mod over the weekend" friend again? And I never realised the Merlin had older kit than the SK 6! Never worked Merlin so always assumed it was a big jump forward. Ah well, H 'n' H was always one to "look on the bright side of life!" as Eric Idle wrote for Monty Python! Actually, "Monty Python" sums up an awful lot of stuff!!! :ok: Hey ho! H 'n' H

Martin the Martian

5th May 2021, 21:38

CSG21 has started.

https://twitter.com/smrmoorhouse/status/1388520531100581890

SLXOwft/N_a_b

With respect to the Merlin HM2 - I believe that the whole fleet is undergoing modifications at Yeovil, which will take a few away from the ready fleet, and HMS Prince Of Wales put to sea yesterday. Does she needs to embark some for whatever trials and training that she will being doing? As for 847 and Junglies in general, we are sending an amphibious force on NATO operations - so I espect that they will take a few Cabs. Maybe even some frigate borne Merlin HM2s?

Purely anecdotal, but since 820 disappeared to Portsmouth last week, Merlin activity in the skies over West Cornwall has reduced to almost nothing.

oldgrubber

5th May 2021, 22:01

Tuc,
The trip in question was minus jets, so there was just us, the 771 cab and a Merlin that took ages to get serviceable on the Fort boat. Nottingham did have a Lynx but that went for a swim. I must admit I can't remember whether we did any actual "rescues", but the winch was not just for show. So hats off to you for not bowing to pressure. We were actually ready to go to 2 fishermen floating in an empty storage container (1 dead unfortunately), but the RFA got there first.
I really think the "5 Merlins can do" statement has cost the Navy dearly. As you said, beancounters just don't understand what they're doing beyond their little bubble. The guy who first said it obviously meant in the ASW role, in a particular scenario, but why let the truth get in the way. Now we have a further attrition of ASW cabs by fitting a bunch of them with a bag (if only they had looked seriously at the storage cabs for Asac). Yes I know it's role fit, but you know that's cobblers. The image of doing a hot role change on deck when Red October comes knocking, is just for public consumption in my opinion.
H "n" H,
I keep forgetting that the language we spoke was very particular to the Navy and WAFFUs especially. I know my first attempts at producing a CV on leaving the RN needed "de-Mateloting" by my career transition advisor.

Not_a_boffin

6th May 2021, 06:13

Purely anecdotal, but since 820 disappeared to Portsmouth last week, Merlin activity in the skies over West Cornwall has reduced to almost nothing.
Probably because all the spares went to QNLZ by road the week before and the S cabs flew in last week.

The 5 Merlin for 8 SK might have worked had the ILS budget not been cut to the bone and beyond.

tucumseh

6th May 2021, 06:44

airsound, trust me, you are not the first person to accuse us WAFFU's of talking utter nonsense ........ and, sadly, there will be many, many, many after you who will say the same!!!!! All I can say is .......... it's a fair cop, Guv! :ok: But you picked up on the really important bit!!!!!!!!! So "BZ" as we would say!!! :E

Tuc, forgot all about our convo way back on the Mk. 7 fiasco. I did laugh when I got the GFE list across my desk for the Mk. 2 bits to feed into the Mk. 7 Mods Programme. The 2 was UOR if I recall (hence the hand-to-mouth shuffling of things like pallets) so one would have hoped the endorsed requirement for the replacement would have acknowledged those issues. Seemingly, if you manage to survive on a "beg-steal-borrow" Support Policy long enough ..... why not read that forward for the next Fleet?! Good on you/PE for sorting that out! Was that our certain "do the Mod over the weekend" friend again? And I never realised the Merlin had older kit than the SK 6! Never worked Merlin so always assumed it was a big jump forward. Ah well, H 'n' H was always one to "look on the bright side of life!" as Eric Idle wrote for Monty Python! Actually, "Monty Python" sums up an awful lot of stuff!!! :ok: Hey ho! H 'n' H

Lots of issues there Hot'n'High! You'll recall there were 10 Mk2 airframes, but 2 were attrition airframes, not aircraft, and there was no kit for them. The Radar System Upgrade (a small part of the ASaC Mk7 programme) endorsement said 10 fully fitted, but the top-up buy was uneconomical. Not much more to buy an extra 7 or 8. But there was a contradiction on the same page - SOIU said '96 hours continuous coverage from a CVS'. That worked out at 16 cabs. (And was prescient, as that is exactly what the squadron did in 2003). But Main Building doesn't like getting caught out on their arithmetic, so dug their heels in and said 10. But there was tacit approval after a quiet meeting with their boss, and swift support for the extra 3. Depending on who asked, we gave a different reason.

The Pallet Head and Scanner Assy was always a problem. We (you, me) were always loathe to send them back to 4th line, as the Swing Arm was an old piece of North Sea gas pipe and could never be certified. And there was no safety case possible for the 3000 psi accumulator. The poor rep from Thorn, who lived in the portacabin at the 849 hangar door, had his work cut out. He was brilliant.

MoD acquisition is littered with programmes that the end user assumed would be an improvement, but were actually endorsed as a 'replacement'. RMPA for Nimrod. BOWMAN was not required to be any better than Clansman. 'Entryism' to get the job off the ground, hoping your OR successors will manage to swing an upgrade. Merlin avionics was definitely in this category, if only because of the 'on board commonality' mandate for CVSs.

To be fair, the 'convert the fleet over a week-end' chap got on board and helped persuade OR on the 13 cabs business. The basic problem was that 99.9% of the RN thought it was a minor Transmitter power hike, with colour displays. Poor communication. When your AEO sussed his cabs would disappear for a 3 month upgrade, I was asked to do Q&A sessions on what you were getting. I remember the pilot who was always front and centre and eager to learn was Andy Wilson, who was killed in 2003. A lot of the nice to have tweaks came from him.

Oldgrubber

"If only they had looked seriously at the storage cabs for Asac".

Ferranti's Blue Vixen, in a Merlin, won the 'ASaC' radar job hands down in 1993. There was a political overrule, and we were told to give the radar contract to Racal, and upgrade Searchwater LAST. Hence, the honking great list of 3,000+ items handed to Hot'n'High, whose boss had nil resources as everyone 'knew' it was to be Merlin with a new radar. Problem was, Racal had never bid - it was purely a political decision to protect jobs in the Minister's constituency. The programme was frozen for 6 months to allow them to work out what we wanted. (They never did). Retention of Sea King was directed, but it turned out to be a good decision (for the wrong reason) as there was no guarantee Merlin would be ready. There were too many unknowns on Merlin in 1993, and it could have ended up as a Chinook Mk3 or Nimrod cock-up; which were both predicted and notified at the time. You'll recall FOAEW and then MASC worked on the assumption that the Sea King consoles would simply be transferred to whatever platform they chose. Not gonna happen when the consoles are part of the superstructure. What has become Crowsnest was always going to be delayed until the genius who made that assumption was promoted out of the way. Little changes!

Hot 'n' High

6th May 2021, 08:50

Well, Tuc, Not_a_boffin, Oldgrubber, Martin the Martian, SLXOwft and others, a fairly comprehensive list of concerns raised in the last few days - and, OG, exactly my thoughts re the "role-change" concept from ASW to AEW. Sounds good in theory ...... I remembered that point after I'd posted and was en-route to the Beer Garden for a couple of hours "on task"! :ok: And, Tuc, glad our "friend" came good in the end. :)

So, WE BF, I think you have some inkling now as to why there is a degree of concern and maybe why things don't add up reading across from CVS to QE - there are just so many factors influencing this - some going back more than a few years now! And none are reflected in the current MoD "Tweets" - unsurprisingly!

I'll bow out of this convo now, but, in departing, I think I can probably say on behalf of all the above Posters, I wish the Lads and Lassies tasked to make this all work all the best. Ultimately, it's in the Cab or on the Flight Deck or down in the Shed and in the AED Workshops where it all comes to rest - and it's down to the skill and, often, ingenuity of each and every one of them to make the best of it.

Fly Safe - Fly Navy! :ok:

Asturias56

6th May 2021, 14:29

Maybe we should send the QE to Jersey?

WE Branch Fanatic

6th May 2021, 16:24

Is it me - or does this appear to be a Merlin HM2 flying from Yeovil, presumably sent back to Leonardo to have the structural modifications to carry the Crowsnest gear - which would have removed it from the deployable fleet for a while? Aircraft ZH864:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1080/image_17389b57285ae67ccb51f50b30ba249fcab1c94e.png

Also this morning there was a Merlin HM2 up from Culdrose.

SLXOwft

6th May 2021, 17:20

I believe '864 has been 'under the care of' Leonardo since 2019. So I assume a ASAC D&T cab.

Picture from May 2020 of her with a Bag in this article from 2020. https://www.navylookout.com/a-pale-imitation-of-carrier-strike/

The Merlin allocated for flight trials, the responsibility of Leonardo Helicopters, was left outdoors and needed repairs leaving it only useable for ground testing. Another of the RN’s 30 precious Merlins Mk2s had to be handed over for the task, reducing its fleet availability. :ugh:

I think I can probably say on behalf of all the above Posters, I wish the Lads and Lassies tasked to make this all work all the best. Ultimately, it's in the Cab or on the Flight Deck or down in the Shed and in the AED Workshops where it all comes to rest - and it's down to the skill and, often, ingenuity of each and every one of them to make the best of it. BZ H'n'H

Thankfully, this is intended to be a showing the flag Ex and I trust will remain so. If things got nasty East of Suez tactics based the assumptions of the North Atlantic would IHMO go over the side. Unless in range of land based (or a US CVBG) support and intel, the threat axes would be uncertain. As Mog might remind us, 39 years ago the CANA delivered Exocets by attacking from an unexpected direction hence avoiding the AAW pickets.

airsound

6th May 2021, 17:31

After all the negative stuff about the outbound carrier group, how about a spot of positive stuff that doesn't come from WEBF, hmmm? This is from Thin Pinstriped Line. (My bold bits!)

....this is a huge success story for the Royal Navy, which has spent time and money over many decades investing in a range of different projects to ensure that the UK could field a credible carrier strike capability. This isn’t just about the carrier, but the whole picture of ships, escorts, support and all the enablers required to make it happen.

The result is an asset that is truly joint in nature, and which will be of benefit both to all three UK services, but more widely allies too.

Nowhere is this truer than the fact that a core part of the airwing is derived from the presence of 10 US Marine Corps F35 jets, supported by a large contingent of US military personnel onboard. They form an integral part of the ships company and will be embarked throughout the deployment.

This marks the first time in history that a significant US military force has embarked on a foreign vessel in peacetime as an integrated part of a ships airwing for an operational deployment.

Although highly limited ‘cross decking’ has occurred, usually linked to landing/recovery and possible overnight stops, interoperability is far more limited than some people imagine. In fact other than the odd training deployment (such as a small number of French aircraft embarking for maintaining carrier skills, or the occasional south American ‘touch and go’) it is difficult to find any record of this ever occurring before.
https://1.bp.********.com/-otheqoWPPpc/YJGvOwYNo0I/AAAAAAAACb8/449a1zu2OssVUIuQHUBZIMTUzfbAVZk0QCPcBGAYYCw/s320/E0jxYIcWEAQRu1H.jpg (https://1.bp.********.com/-otheqoWPPpc/YJGvOwYNo0I/AAAAAAAACb8/449a1zu2OssVUIuQHUBZIMTUzfbAVZk0QCPcBGAYYCw/s800/E0jxYIcWEAQRu1H.jpg)

Integrated is a quite different concept to that of just landing and taking off. It means that the jets and their crew are part of an integrated weapon system, at the disposal both of the local commander and more senior political decision makers in both nations, to be employed as seen fit.

It means crews embarking as part of the ships company, working seamlessly together as one to plan the mission, arm the aircraft, prepare them for take-off, before conducting a mixed multi-national mission, then recovering to the ship where the aircraft will be serviced by a mixed crew. In other words, the US Marines embarked onboard are an organic part of the ship and are treated as such.

It is difficult to find words to describe adequately just how big a deal this is – it means that the Royal Navy has built an aircraft carrier that the US armed forces feel comfortable embarking a fully worked up squadron of jets on and conducting routine operations off. The level of planning that has gone into this is huge – it means the right IT, the ability to embark different stores, and ensure that any minor national differences on equipment are properly supported.

From a planning perspective it means that the US is prepared to put its most advanced fighter aircraft onto a foreign vessel and let it be employed operationally – meaning full discussion of tactics, ‘sneaky tricks’ and other very sensitive issues around how to not just exercise together but go to war together as a joint force.

This is a big deal – there are no other countries on earth that do this, and it demonstrates a huge level of trust and support between the two nations.

Some will mock this, incorrectly seeing it as the UK somehow being reliant on ‘Uncle Sam’ to bail them out and put planes on decks. Such a view is tediously inaccurate nonsense. The UK F35 force is still building up to strength and deliveries of the initial 48 (with more very likely) and while this is going on, will not always have l8 aircraft available to deploy.

This doesn’t mean we won’t – it just means that for a little bit longer there may be a smaller than expected UK fixed wing presence. Over time, as the UK commitment grows, expect to see the airwings grow and over time there will almost certainly be 20+ jets onboard plus supporting helicopters.

airsound

Asturias56

7th May 2021, 07:48

" deliveries of the initial 48 (with more very likely)"

IIRC when the Defence Review was published the same blog said that the number of extra F-35's was a long way off if ever?

Davef68

7th May 2021, 09:34

Didn't a USMC AV-8B unit deploy to Illustrious in about 2007/8 whilst our Harriers were busy somewhere hot and high?

Asturias56

7th May 2021, 16:13

Didn't a USMC AV-8B unit deploy to Illustrious in about 2007/8 whilst our Harriers were busy somewhere hot and high?" in July 2007, Illustrious took part in a US-led Joint Task Force Exercise (JTF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTF)X) off the eastern coast of the United States (for which she hosted 14 US Harrier jets and 200 US Marines) before returning to Portsmouth the following month"

So yes but you don't want to get in the way of a good press release do you?

Not_a_boffin

7th May 2021, 16:46

" in July 2007, Illustrious took part in a US-led Joint Task Force Exercise (JTF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTF)X) off the eastern coast of the United States (for which she hosted 14 US Harrier jets and 200 US Marines) before returning to Portsmouth the following month"

So yes but you don't want to get in the way of a good press release do you?

If only you understood the difference between what happened in that instance in 2007 and what is happening now.

Still, you don't want to get in the way of a good dig at the carrier programme or TPL, do you?

airsound

7th May 2021, 17:53

Asturias - when you refer to 'a good press release', I assume you're referring to the Thin Pinstriped Line that I quoted at post #6208.

That is definitely (note the spelling, Line of Duty folks, particularly Detective Superintendent Buckells...), anyway, that is definately not a press release. It is a blog by a guy called Humphrey, who is, as far as I know, an employee of HMG, but who blogs very much on their own views. Humphrey is not afraid of denigrating government efforts when necessary.

airsound

SLXOwft

7th May 2021, 18:59

Well said, Airsound. This is no puff piece press release; it is the views of someone who is always reasoned, coherent, and apparently well informed. Sir Humphrey is no one's poodle and has consistently given deserved criticism. I hope he (or she) doesn't object to me quoting further.

What this deployment of a joint airwing offers is a toolbox of enormous flexibility to British and American policy makers and military planners. It provides an asset that can be used to support NATO or other coalition operations, or if needs must could support bilateral airstrikes instead.

We already know that the airwing will be conducting operations over Syria to take the fight to Daesh in the coming weeks and months. For the first time since 1942 and the “USS ROBIN” (aka HMS VICTORIOUS) the combined air forces of the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and United States Navy & Marine Corps will be going on operations from the shared deck of one carrier.

This is perhaps the ultimate demonstration of the flexibility of the concept – providing a platform that both nations can use to best effect. It is a good example of just how effective the working relationship is that both countries feel comfortable committing their assets to what are essentially wartime operations on the first operational deployment of the ship.

The deployment of the CSG21 team represents the first of many deployments like this, which could run for decades to come. It demonstrates the incredibly close links between the two nations and is a timely reminder of the versatility of the carrier platform
https://thinpinstripedline.b l o g s p o t .com/2021/05/the-start-of-something-special-csg21.html (https://tinyurl.com/3dfj9mbj) remove the spaces.

WE Branch Fanatic

7th May 2021, 21:59

Looks like continuous ASW might be on the menu soon:

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1390754148723875841

Asturias56

8th May 2021, 08:13

"If only you understood the difference between what happened in that instance in 2007 and what is happening now."

I was answering Dave's question - and I really would like to know what the differences are between the 2 deployments please. As you say I'm not a big fan of the UK Carrier programme - I've consistently argued the case for more frigates and more SSN's instead.

"Asturias - when you refer to 'a good press release', I assume you're referring to the Thin Pinstriped Line that I quoted at post #6208."

Partly - and also to the large number of updates provided by WEBF. I find the TPL informative - but I'm sure they previously suggested that it would be a very long time before the extra F-35's were purchased - which was a bit at odds with their latest thoughts

Not_a_boffin

8th May 2021, 15:46

FODPlod

8th May 2021, 18:43

There is a huge difference between a dozen cabs hopping aboard for a couple of weeks scripted exercise off the US coast and a similar number and all their associated support embarking for a six month deployment to the other side of the world. Where they have to be prepared for anything and are a fully integrated part of the CSG.

That should be obvious to anyone and is partly why it's difficult to take your views on FF and SSN seriously.
it’s akin to the difference between a US Cavalry unit joining elements of the British Army for a scripted training exercise at BATUS and the same unit being assigned to UK OPCOM for operations in Afghanistan (and, as happened in 2010, vice-versa).

This is not as outlandish as some might choose to think and it happens at individual level too. RN officers have been embedded in the US CENTCOM Fifth Fleet’s CTF 52 command structure in the Gulf for several years.

Joint Fact Sheet: U.S. and UK Defense Cooperation (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/14/joint-fact-sheet-us-and-uk-defense-cooperation)
British and American exchange personnel routinely deploy on operations with their host units. For example, British air transport pilots flew with the U.S Air Force in Haiti earthquake relief operations, and British F-18 pilots are currently flying operational missions from the USS Stennis. U.S. Marine Corp exchange officers have deployed on operational tours to Afghanistan with their host British units, in some cases in a command position, and the U.S. Air Force has a long tradition of exchanging pilots on transport, aerial refueling, and combat aircraft with Royal Air Force units...

Asturias56

9th May 2021, 06:56

Not_a_boffin

9th May 2021, 08:42

Thank you - my views on FF & SSN are however shared by a large number of ex serving officers in all arms of the forces............................

Good for you. So are mine.

Asturias56

9th May 2021, 09:13

Indeed - as the thread has been running for 15 years and has 16000+ contributions and 1.7 million views I think we can agree that opinion remains heartfelt but still divided?

SLXOwft

9th May 2021, 09:42

Well elements of 847 NAS are off to the Baltic. No mention of 845 's Merlins so a Wildcat only deployment? I wonder if Mounts Bay will get its temporary hangar?

This is the first deployment of the Littoral Response Group (North) task group, which is the first of two forces – centred around Royal Marines and amphibious ships – that will regularly carry out operations in areas of interest to the UK, providing reassurance to allies and deter potential adversaries.

In the coming months they will be involved in US-led exercises in Norway and participate in NATO’s Baltops, the largest multinational exercise in the Baltic Sea.

This task group is made up of amphibious assault ship HMS Albion and landing dock RFA Mounts Bay, plus Type 23 frigate HMS Lancaster, Wildcat helicopters from 847 Naval Air Squadron, and Royal Marines from 45 and 30 Commando.

...

“With two major exercises, including the 50th anniversary of NATO’s Baltops, it is shaping up to be a busy deployment.

“We are excited to be part of the development and delivery of the vanguard Littoral Response Group, as announced in the recent Integrated Review, which will project a more sophisticated, persistently engaged, and lethal commando force.” Capt. Simon Kelly RN, HMS Albion

PS I think we will all just have to agree to disagree. However, there are some whose knowledge I always bow to ... Post # 3 "I've been involved on the fringes with this thing off and on since 1994" not_a_boffin

WE Branch Fanatic

14th May 2021, 20:15

Some recent news from Italy: ITS Cavour conducts successful F-35B trials (https://mc.nato.int/media-centre/news/2021/its-cavour-conducts-successful-f35-trials)

For decades, the bond between Europe and North America has made NATO the strongest Alliance in history. Conducting training and exercises alongside Allies and partners increases our collective capacity and capabilities as well as increased interoperability with the U.S. forces. Its Cavour has truly been an ambassador of this trans-Atlantic bond.

Several Allied carrier strike groups, under national command, will be deployed into SACEUR Area of Responsibility (AOR) in the upcoming weeks and months. These multiple deployments demonstrate the Allied commitment to the maritime enterprise as well as our ability to effectively deliver multi-domain effects.

The multinational character of NATO deployment, exercises and activities reflect Allies’ fundamental commitment to the transatlantic bond and to the principle of collective defence in order to keep peace and preserve security. No Ally can face today’s security challenges alone. We are stronger when we stand together.

Interoperability is an essential component of NATO’s DNA and a key component of Allied forces’ readiness and ability to deter aggression. The aircraft carrier represents the highest expression of a nation’s air/sea power and naval diplomacy. The deployment of an aircraft carrier is an enabling factor, because this kind of unit allows rapid redeployment of capabilities, thanks to its peculiar characteristics of operational readiness, enduring logistic self-reliance, high command and control capabilities, and full freedom of movement, thanks to the International Legal Regime of the High Seas (freedom of navigation and inoffensive transit passage through straits) as established by the UNCLOS.

Navaleye

15th May 2021, 05:32

If only you understood the difference between what happened in that instance in 2007 and what is happening now.

Still, you don't want to get in the way of a good dig at the carrier programme or TPL, do you?

With 14 AV-8Bs on board, Illustrious would have exhausted her supply of bombs in one strike. The Invincibles were marginal at best in this role. QEC is a different matter. That's a big difference.

sfm818

20th May 2021, 08:41

I am surprised not to see any mention of HMSQNLZ entering Portsmouth the other day ranged with 617 and VMFA-211 kites.

Distant recollection of an SDSR on the Cameron watch (remember him?) which stated the USMC will form an integral part of QE class operations.

Is this the future? UK defence (And sovereignty) compromised by US foreign policy.

Timelord

20th May 2021, 09:04

More interestingly, what is she doing back alongside? Storms in the Solent ? Really ?

Not_a_boffin

20th May 2021, 09:49

More interestingly, what is she doing back alongside? Storms in the Solent ? Really ?

Easier and cheaper to top up the vittles stores alongside on PRJ then it is to do so at Charlie buoy. Forecast 40kt plus gales today and tomorrow which would have made boat Tx unnecessarily tricky.

FODPlod

20th May 2021, 14:31

WE Branch Fanatic

20th May 2021, 17:05

Well, I'm pleased, at least:

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/may/20/210520-carriers-at-sea-and-strike-warrior

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x1000/fleet_20210519_ap0001_046_e6da9f41a8190cefc5955657f7b0f86f0d c04c4a.jpg

The article could have been written with just a little more care....

By successfully bringing down two “bogeys” – jet target drones – with air-to-air missiles, the pilots of 617 Squadron (aka The Dambusters) showed how they can protect HMS Queen Elizabeth [and the rest of the strike/task group including vessels being escorted] from air attack during the deployment and demonstrated the potency of the fifth-generation strike fighter.

Lieutenant Commander David Tinsley, the ship’s [Kent] Weapon Engineer Officer, said: “Our hull mounted and towed sonar systems are incredibly capable at locating sub-surface contacts, combined with the very best operators and environmental analysis methods, the equipment performed exceptionally well in tracking the submarine. The towed array provides long range detection and cues helicopters with dipping sonar - in this case carrier based ones.

ORAC

21st May 2021, 21:33

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/05/21/brits-launch-logistics-ship-competition-again/

Britain launches $2.3B logistics ship competition — again

LONDON — Britain has relaunched a £1.6 billion (U.S. $2.3 billion) competition to build three logistic ships to support the deployments of Royal Navy aircraft carriers and other surface ships.….

Asturias56

22nd May 2021, 06:38

"One industry executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he hopes the MoD hadn’t resorted to weasel words in order to keep its options open when it comes to international competition. The worst-case scenario on integration could involve the hull being built offshore and the fitting-out undertaken in the U.K.,” he said"

given that something like 75% of the value is in fitting out rather than hull- building I'd say he's wrong

WE Branch Fanatic

22nd May 2021, 22:33

HMS Queen Elizabeth has sailed.

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1396212341499432965

Soon she will be joined by her strike/task group. In just a few days they will be contributing to an important NATO exercise that is intended to show the feasibility of Transatlantic reinforcement. Later in the deployment aircraft will launch from the deck of a British carrier to deliver ordnance against the enemy of all civilised nations, peoples, and faiths.

Fair winds...

dctyke

23rd May 2021, 06:37

Will RAF/Navy engineering personnel be servicing USMC f35 aircraft on deployment?

Asturias56

23rd May 2021, 06:59

dctyke

23rd May 2021, 09:15

". Later in the deployment aircraft will launch from the deck of a British carrier to deliver ordnance against the enemy of all civilised nations, peoples, and faiths."

Must have missed that declaration of war WEBF - let me guess - Godzilla?

was doing fine till they mentioned ‘faiths’. Which ones are the good ones I wonder? As far as I am concerned religious faiths ‘come in peace - shoot to kill’.

Not_a_boffin

23rd May 2021, 14:30

"
given that something like 75% of the value is in fitting out rather than hull- building I'd say he's wrong
Nope. That's not how it works. "Fitting out" is not what you think it is.

SLXOwft

23rd May 2021, 19:46

Navy Lookout (né Save the Royal Navy) have some interesting comments re FSS: (https://www.navylookout.com/the-competition-to-build-the-fleet-solid-support-ships-has-been-restarted/)

The Team UK bid would be politically low-risk but there are question marks around industrial capacity, given the other parallel shipbuilding projects these companies may already have underway. Infrastrata have a big empty dock in Belfast but lack the experience as well as the skilled the workforce for such a task and would be very reliant on Navatia. The optics of at least a part of the work being done in Spain would be difficult. The upside of the ‘part-foreign’ bid could ultimately be to help reinvigorate shipbuilding in Belfast (and possibly Appledore) by transfer of skills and Navantia’s digital shipyard technology.The requirement for a British company to lead the bid could also be an issue. Bidding for MoD business requires a company to have cash or assets in proportion to a large percentage of the contract value. The approximately £1.5Bn FSS contract would not be a problem for a major corporate entity like Navantia but Infrastra Plc is relatively small. A good team of lawyers and financiers could most likely surmount this obstacle.
And...

DE&S’ Director General Ships, Vice Admiral Chris Gardner, effectively confirmed that the Heavy RAS (5-tonne) requirement has been abandoned, commenting that FSS will be “able to transfer loads of more than two tonnes at a time while at high speed”. This may not appear significant but de-scoping the specification will simplify internal design, reduce costs and help deliver three instead of two ships. The obvious tactical implication of not being able to transfer bigger loads is more time spent conducting replenishments when the participants are potentially more vulnerable.

More directly relevant to this thread, is their thoughts on the vulnerability caused by the time frame for replacing the one current FSS:
The recent minor fire (https://www.navylookout.com/minor-fire-onboard-rfa-fort-victoria-highlights-single-point-of-failure-for-carrier-strike-group/) onboard the sole existing FSS, RFA Fort Victoria should serve as a wake-up call that greater priority should be given to providing combat support vessels for the Carrier Strike Group. A small electrical fire is believed to have done very little direct damage to the ship but the effects of smoke have written off the stock of frozen provisions for the CSG21 deployment. There may be some knock-on effects but fortunately, this happened alongside and before the group had sailed, presumably allowing the opportunity for some rapid re-storing.

The linked article includes:Thanks to their folding rotors and tail added during their conversion to Mk4 standard, for the first time three Merlin helicopters were squeezed into Fort Vic’s hangar. This is an important option to have in the event of foul weather as the cabs are much better protected than when lashed to the flight deck. Space for carrying out maintenance is very restricted and at least one would normally be kept on deck.

For the upcoming deployment, Fort Vic has over 230 personnel on board. Besides to core RFA crew of around 100, she has embarked sailors of 1700 Naval Air Squadron who provide a range of aircraft handling, weapon engineering and support to the civilian crew. Three Merlin Mk4s of 845 Naval Air Squadron, along with aircrew and engineers add to the total. The Merlins have multiple roles, providing logistic support to the carrier group – Maritime Intra Theatre Lift (MITL), Joint Personnel Recovery (JPR), and vertical replenishment (VERTREP).

Fort Vic had earlier conducted a landmark replenishment at sea off the UK coast with HMS Queen Elizabeth that represented the culmination of many years of work and planning. This was the first time solid stores and munitions had been passed to one of the QEC carriers at sea. Fort Vic had to be significantly modified so her jackstay rigs have geometry compatible with the high Heavy RAS-capable rigs of the carrier.