Agreed. You can have as many little ships as you like - but as the enemy you're not going to worry about them unless you know Big Mama (two of them, bristling with 5th Gen warfare capability!) will come and back them up if necessary.

I was looking at some very recent photographs of both liners, shockingly few defensive installations fitted.

"unless you know Big Mama (two of them, bristling with 5th Gen warfare capability!) will come and back them up if necessary."

That's going to have the PLA quaking in their boots I'm sure - they've had DF-21's deployed for over 10 years and are replacing them with DF-26's - each of which comfortably out-ranges any aircraft the QE class bring along. And even the Saudi's have DF-21's these days.

No politician will be willing to risk these vessels anywhere near any serious opponent

Shockingly few visible defensive installations fitted.

Fixed for you.

Don't worry - the UK Govt will probably publish all the plans by mistake on in their New Years Day message................

We really do need a "like" button on PPRuNe! :ok:

Actually, not really a joke for those who have had their personal info leaked but that's for the other Thread....... :uhoh:

When, in the history of naval warfare, was an aircraft carrier designed, built or deployed to "go it alone?"

Never - but the two QE's were built without increasing the number of support/escort vessels...... they'll all be reroled from othe , necessary, duties - which is criminal TBH

SAASless,

Fair enough, can't argue with a degree of scepticism surrounding "invisible" protective systems.

But I do disagree with this constant claim that these carriers are just sitting ducks against a peer enemy, and your specific claim that they cannot survive in a real full on engagement with a top tier opponent. They will be protected by Type 23 Frigates and Type 45 Destroyers now, and you can add Type 26 and 31 Frigates to future years. These are top tier escorts with top tier AAW capabilities and as the UK is extremely unlikely to ever be operating wholly on its own, would be part of a coalition effort that would add significantly more protective assets. These UK escorts have spent the last decade escorting US and French carriers about the place, so now will instead have a national sovereign equivalent to escort.

As for decrying the lack of Sea Viper or Sea Ceptor on board, well, as they are carried by the escorts what would be the point? And the F-35B Lightning GR1 is itself no slouch when it comes to defending the carriers after all. Prior to the current two carriers the RN touted the last but one Ark Royal, the one with Phantoms/Buccaneers, as the most powerful warship ever fielded by the Royal Navy, and that was armed with nothing more than a pair of 4 pound saluting cannons, so this is hardly a new departure.

Proone,

Can the RN, right now today....support both Carriers in blue water ops in a for real....no holds barred shooting match....all by itself?

If the answer is "No"....then how much foreign support is required?

Then the question becomes whether your two Carriers provide a bonus or a detriment by being present.

SASless,

Seeing as we only have a total of 18 F-35B Lightning FG1's at the moment and the carriers are not even operational, we don't need to, BUT, WHEN both are fully operational, and the F-35B squadrons are formed, yes, the RN could easily support both carriers with T45/T23 and SSN and RFA tankers and Store ships along with RAF P-8A and Typhoon support to boot.

As we all know, A major asset such as a carrier is a floating piece of UK sovereign territory with a population of 2000 British Citizens and if that sovereign territory is attacked, the repercussions will be felt internationally.

IG

Interesting point - what exactly would you do? Send the other Carrier?? launch a Trident attack??

Or more likely write a Stiff Letter to them and confiscate their mansions in London?

I would love to read the Classified Documents that contain the analysis of the risks, dangers, and strategic concepts that have brought the UK to where it is in all of this.

No doubt there has been some interesting discussions and hopefully some very well thought out consideration of opposing views.


What about other operational requirements outside just the single Task Force containing the two Carriers?

What would be left unprotected while the two Carriers draw off those resources?

How many Attack Subs would be left for other traditional wartime missions....you have Six I think it is....three each Astute and Trafalgar Classes?

Do you still have a valid Amphibious Assault capability that would require surface escorts.....I see only two Bulwark class vessels?

Assuming 30-35 F-35's per Carrier at max capability.....what kind of operational tempo will the air wing be able to maintain re its own Air Defense of the Task Force?

How many aircraft can they launch, recover, and refuel using aerial tanking.....24 hours a day?

Load the Carriers up with F-35's and then it gets hard to carry other aircraft.

How will the RN do Air-to-Air refueling......buy USN Unmanned Tankers?

Most of those missing items will be provided by the UK's Allies according to the enthusiasts - that really means the Americans. The Americans will do it because it helps to deflect some of the "going it alone" flak they get - plus RN hospitality is both famous and useful.

The proponents of the QE's always talk about the usefulness in times of all out war - they never talk about the damage being done to the 99% of normal operations.

How many ships did the US Navy send to the Falklands?

pr00ne

Good post. But when did the F-35B get designated GR1? I am sure I once asked about the designation - somewhere. The other point I would make is that the lines between training, exercises, and operations is increasingly blurred, particularly in the NATO context. It will be a busy year in 2020.

SASless

Even US Navy carrier aircraft depend on land based tankers! I can remember seeing TV coverage of RAF ones refuelling USN Tomcats in late 1990 in the Gulf! The reason USN carriers have an AAR capability (now eating up Super Hornet flight hours) is for refuelling jets that miss a wire and have to go around again. STOVL means this is not needed.

As for the US Navy and the Falklands - that is just sophistry as it was not an all out war against the Soviets. An Article V (of the NATO charter) one would different.

Asturias56

See previous point about Article V of the NATO charter. Also carrier groups are often multinational, and the Netherlands has already stated it will contribute frigates to the UK Carrier Strike Group. I wonder if a NATO Standing Force would not be tasked to work with the carrier group if necessary. Note I said 'work with', not 'to escort'.

As for the topic of 'escorts':

During the Falklands War the two carriers were accompanied by something like twenty frigates and destroyers - many of them old and lacking decent radar and missiles. The escorts dedicated purely to the carriers was low - perhaps one of the Type 22s goalkeeping with Sea Wolf? At times Type 22s were detached for other tasks, and groups of frigates and destroyers were detached for things like submarine hunting (with carrier based Sea Kings), naval gunfire support, inserting/extracting/supporting special forces, providing a close escort for the landing force - and providing control for the carrier based Sea Harriers.

One reason I think 'Escort' is an unhelpful term is because of the question of what is to be escorted? A carrier? A merchant ship? what about when she does a role that is escorting nothing - perhaps NGS? My example would be imagine a situation where a small force is put ashore from an LPD. One frigate maintains close proximity to the LPD to defend her - definitely escorting. But what of the other frigate that stays close to the shore and is on call to provide NGS if the Royal Marines need it?

For the ships in a carrier based group, those that provide close protection for the carrier could be said to be escorting. But what about the destroyer that provides control for carrier based (and other fighters), contributes to control of aircraft on other missions, and keeps tabs on everything in the air. Is she really an escort, which implies a passive and purely defensive role? Likewise the frigate some distance from the carrier, providing long range ASW detection with towed array sonar and working with ASW helicopters - including those from the carrier? Escorting? Yes - but to the whole force including any amphibious force, mine counter measures forces, or Crisis Response Shipping being escorted by the task group.