HMS Astute participates in first photo exercise of the 2025 carrier strike group deployment
The RN has confirmed HMS Astute is a participant in Operation HIGHMAST and was officially named in the photos showing the group formed up together off the coast of Portugal on 28th April.
Images of RN submarines at sea are increasingly rare. The RN never actually named the boats that participated in the CSG21 deployment (also HMS Astute, together with HMS Ambush).
HMS Astute sailed from Devonport ahead of the rest of the group on 21st April.The capital ships of the fleet – SSN and the Aircraft Carrier.
Formed up for the first PHOTEX of the deployment.The 7 ships of the group (plus RFA Tideforce): HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Dauntless, ESPS Méndez Núñez, HNoMS Maud, RFA Tidespring, HNoMS Roald Amundsen, and HMS Richmond. HMCS Ville de Québec is not in the photo, having detached to Rota for a brief logistic stop – she later rejoined for transit into the Mediterranean.The largest concentration of UK naval air power since the 1970s. 12 jets are visible on deck in the image here. It is believed 18 have embarked so far. (This number will rise to 24 for at least a short period during the deployment).
Command of the UKCSG has now been ‘chopped’ to NATO as the group is now participating in exercise Neptune Strike 2025. The CSG was joined by Portuguese frigate, NRP Bartolomeu Dias, and the ships transited the Gibraltar Strait today on their way into the Mediterranean.
I get the lack of UK escorts, but I have to say our ability to call on allies to form a carrier group is something to be admired. It’s an impressive force
It’s genuinely our superpower. Friendly nations across the globe. It’s something Russia, China and I’m afraid to say the current US administration doesn’t understand.
The whole deployment is a glorified photo shoot. Our allies are getting the positive news from it, just like we are.
Also gives their forces a chance to train alongside other nations to learn from them.
So in their interests to support rather than them just helping out.
Whether those allies would join during a war situation, is anyone’s guess. History of the Falklands would suggest probably not
Last edited 15 days ago by Steve
leh
18 days ago
Nice to see HMS Astute taking part, after there had been some speculation that the group might be without an SSN.
donald_of_tokyo
18 days ago
Great photo, impressive.
What is interesting is the three “Tide families” in line. Also impressive is the 12 F35B visible on the flight deck. Even with only 12 fifth-gen fighters, “relative” power is exceeding that of 30-40 Sea Harriers RN could have deployed in 1990s. F35B is one of the top end fighters of the day, while Sea Harriers will be struggling against “normal” fighter of the day, F-16s.
Yes. 20 Sea Harriers went South to Falklands later joined by 8 more . It was a bit earlier than 90s. But Invincible only had 8, so 2 carriers in 90s might be 16 , with helicopters of course
Yeah Falklands was very different, nearly a decade before the 90s. Hermes was much bigger than the Invincible-class and carried 24 harriers on that deployment (not sure if all at once) along with quite a few helicopters.
The invincible-class could carry 16 and sometimes did but typically just one squadron of 7-9. If you theoretically had 2 carriers available for deployment at one time you could have had 32 between them but I don’t know if availability hit that, and it would make more sense to have 16 on one in an air superiority/strike role, and 8 on the other with a larger complement of helicopters for ASW.
This article gives a better picture of the numbers, types and retirement dates.
I hadn’t realised the price of the F-35 had already doubled by then. LINK
Retirement:
The Sea Harrier was withdrawn from service in 2006 and the last remaining aircraft from 801 Naval Air Squadron were decommissioned on 29 March 2006. The plans for retirement were announced in 2002 by the Ministry of Defence.
The aircraft’s replacement, the F-35 Lightning II, was originally due in 2012, the MoD arguing that significant expenditure would be required to upgrade the fleet for only six years of service.
By March 2010, the F-35’s introduction had been pushed back to 2016 at the earliest, with the price doubled.
Would anyone happen to know if we intend to purchase the AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) for external carriage on our F-35Bs, or the NSM?
I noted on Jane’s yesterday that Norway has started to receive the NSM for their F-35As.
Norway has received the first Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA) Joint Strike Missile (JSM) to equip its fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) combat aircraft.
The Norwegian Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced the milestone, saying the first of an undisclosed number of missiles to equip the Royal Norwegian Air Force’s (RNoAF’s) recently received fleet of 52 F-35As was handed over at Ørland Air Base on 28 April.
“Norway has become the first country to receive the full delivery of all its planned F-35 fighter jets… Today, the [Norwegian] Armed Forces have also received their first super missile from the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency and KDA.
Work will now begin to stockpile the JSM missile at Ørland Air Base,” Minister of Defence Tore Sandvik said at the handover ceremony.
As noted by Janes Weapons: Air Launched, the JSM is a Norwegian-developed precision‐guided stand‐off missile, optimised for use by aircraft against both naval and land targets.
The low-observable weapon provides anti‐ship attack capability to combat aircraft by using imaging infrared (IIR) guidance and a 120 kg impact or time delay warhead.
Designed for internal and external carriage aboard the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A and the carrier variant (CV) F-35C (it is too large for the internal weapons bays of the short take-off and vertical landing [STOVL] F-35B), the JSM has an estimated speed of Mach 0.9 and a range in excess of 275 km.”
Yes. This professional level modeller made his own FRS1 and FA.2 fuselage kits ( around 22 in long), which show the forward nose change and the rear fuselage plug to balance it out
You have, quite obviously, not been following the news today…
There is a very good reason for the Canadian Navy being absent….
The new PM of Canada – who whom once was (incidentially) the former governor of the Bank of England – is now rapidly reconfiguring all of the Royal Canadian Armed Forces to defend the entire country against a northwards invasion by the USA
It must be true = it was was on BBC Radio 4 this lunchtime…. !!!
CANADA has finally committed to the update of its armed forces, Past Liberal Governments have been ridiculed by fellow NATO members, Few of these countries sympathies with them over TRUMP (IN PRIVATE) and it will be interesting to see what direction the new government takes AFTER THE ELECTION!..
Regardless of the cheeky response, They were supposed to participate, and did not. This is the issue with international coalitions, everyone talks a big game because it’s free. Then you have to see who actually shows up and pays the bill.
As we seem to be going by historic precedents on this thread: we’d set fire to the White House and ask the Russians to arbitrate on the price of slaves.
If the USA decided to invade Canada then – especially given the existing huge weaknesses in all of Canada’s defences – I strongly suspect that that all nine Canadian provinces would soon be overun in just few days by the elite US National Parks Service (US-NPS)
The US NPS would then, obviously as part of the Donald’s coordinated plan, move onto overland and across the ice to invade Greenland.
That would leave the rest of the US defence commmunity – such diverse (note 2) organisations as USN, USAF, US Army, 50 state National Guard units, FEMA, CIA, NSA, SpaceX, NASA, DIA, FBI, NGIA, MCI,DofE, Homeland Security, AFI, Wal-Mart, ODNI etc etc – to continue to focus on collecting those huge new tariffs on all Chinese imports into the US Rustbelt
——————
However that possibility of the US-NPS soon crossing the 49th parallel now raises some very interesting constitutional issues for us here in the UK;
Therefore I strongly suspect that “our charlie” (note 3) might well have secret motive behind inviting “The Donald” to an completely unprecedented second state visit here in London this coming September
Details have yet to be arranged, whowever I have to ask:
Is “Charlie” hosting “the Donald” inside the Tower of London?
Because….
Did you see the very sly grin on William’s face when he handed the offical invite over to Donald in the Oval Office?
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note1.
Please see Navy Lookout, about a month ago, if you don’t understand this comment about the military capabilities of the elite US-NPS
Note 2.
“Diverse” is now a banned word in the land of the free (the USA)
So I will use it here and now, probably for the last time here on NL…..
.., just before former DPP Kier decides to follow suit and ban it here…
Note 3
For those of you reading this who do’t know him – like those of you crossing the Channel (note 4) in small boats today – “our Charlie” is head of state here in the UK
Note 4 Often incorrectly called “La Marche” by little froggie in his posts here on NL
Peter As you want to use the french wording, do it right: it’s La MaNche, not La Marche.
Then, “La ville de Quebec” may have been recalled (I don’t know actually), because she is very symbolic.
During the Independance War in 1775, for the first time the young US republic tried to “free or liberate” (it was already the wording meaning “to invade”, except for France in 1944 wich was actually liberated) the “occupied” ex-french colony, which was the most populated part of Canada,
So, the USA obviously wanted to conquer Canada. The army they sent from New York to Montreal wanted first to rally Quebec, where the ex-french settlers were attented to be happy with their arrival.
BUT the ex-French settlers decided to defend Canada against the USA, and besides the numerous indian tribes which were their traditionnal allies (remember Fenimore Cooper, only the Mohawks were allied with the British Lobsters), they fight alongside the small British garrison of Quebec and repelled the invaders. The US survivors were chased and killed in the forest by Indians and the US army was totally destroyed.
This was the famous “Quebec city battle” Afterwards the ex-french settlers were rewarded by the King.
It’s the reason why: 1/ French is an official Canadian language. 2/ Catholicism is recognised as an official religion 3/ The governor’s guard (same uniforms as King’s guard) relief in Quebec happens with all orders told in French language👍 4/ Claiming for Quebec independance is stupid
What French military asset could help? The French navy has an “OPV” stationned at St Pierre et Miquelon, close to Canada. It’s an ex-fishery ship transformed and armed with a 12,7mm HMG. Is it enough?
I wonder what would happen if the 6 or so Western provinces of Canada (RICH) were to decide to join USA as separate states, and the 3 or so Eastern (French Poor) remain independent …?
The richest always have more to lose than the poorest. It’s the way the revolutions come… So the poorest Canadians Province are less in trouble with the tariffs war.
And for the Western Canadian envy to join the USA, it’s not the feeling that my sister, who is living in British Columbia and married with a true anglosaxon guy, is reporting.
It seems (it’s not a poll!) that the US society is not so attractive: too violent for Canadian minds, and the canadian “NHS” is far more efficient than US Care, amongst other differences in the ways of living.
And when I say “too violent”, it’s not to mean that the Canadian people didn’t like weapons: the average number of fire arms per capita is higher in Canada than in USA. They just don’t use them to kill each other.
The French/frogs need to realise the English are not just the ‘AngloSaxons’ in the same way the French are not all Franks. The English took the Angle name but is an umbrella name of Celts, Saxons, jutes, Danes, Fresians, later Normans (only part French) and so on. There are more Celts who are English than Celts in Wales. Just say English.
“Correct” as would say Peter, and DNA analysis could be surprising.
Many French people living in what is today “Brittany” are directly descending (correct word?) from the Britain inhabitants who leaved after the Roman Legions removal, when they had to face Saxons (and Danes, etc) invaders. This “saxon” invasion has been a booster for the “Brit” invasion of what was named “Armorique” during the 5th century, and therefore it was renamed “Brittany”. And it explains the tumultuous relationship during centuries between the Duke of Brittany and the “King of the Franks”, and after the “King of France”.
I doubt that much would change! Can’t see massive numbers of crazy,wild shooting Yanks moving north of the border,to cold for them! As for NHS I suspect that could easily be protected in negotiations!
I assume that great uncertainity in the world today is why the French are now very pleased that they have always maintained their nation’s own independent nuclear detterent.
I think everybody would be pleased with less uncertainity in the world.
The first work for building up this FND began after WWII when US-French relationship was very compromized (De Gaulle was not friendly, decolonisation war in Indochina, etc.). At this time the USA agreed to help GB to buid a BND, but they didn’t want to do the same for the Froffies. With bad or good reasons, it doesn’t matter now. So France has to buid it from scratch. It was happy that Curie and some other nuclear scientists were French, it means there were some “nuclear scientist culture” in the country.
About nuclear anglo-french cooperation, both countries should have taken advantage of the bad “Suez experiment” in 1956 to better link their nuclear military cooperation. They didn’t.
And for now, what is interesting is that Turquiey is willing to follow the same path, with the help of Chineses and Russians, who are building electronuclear plants in the country.
As stated in the article, the Canadian frigate had detoured to Rota for a logistics stop. You didn’t read the words?
Grant
17 days ago
Does amyome know why it looks like all the paint / anechoic tiles appear to have come off Astutes sail,and rear casing? The rear casing looks like they’ve had a crash somewhere!
the plane that joined the Med’s Goldfish Club was a 617 Sqd dambuster
The Biggles who now has “life membership” (note 1) of the Martin Baker Tie Cub was an FAA pilot
and the team who got the blame were the crabb’s enginners (note 2)
Hence a Crabby Board of Inquiry
and the AA system used was found to be RAF Red Gear “on walkabouts”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
pun definitely intended
Note 2.
However, as somebody else pointed out here on NL at the time,
…..the forum which has all the real experts at hand….,
…… it was “rather interesting that he pointed out that the multi-billion pound F35 developmeent programme had not included a gauge ni the cockpit say “power %”
hence the Biggles thought be was at 100% full power
when the plane itself, on its short take of run was suffering from an acute case of:
“Globus Pharynegus”
Bloke down the pub
17 days ago
‘The largest concentration of UK naval air power since the 1970s.’ Doesn’t Corporate count?
As I’ve stated in the past, The QE CLASS was not designed as a STRIKE CARRIER! It was always designed as a SUPPORT CARRIER, IT has few of the desired features of a STRIKE CARRIER and should not be used as such (Has more in common with USS AMERICA THAN USS NIMITZ) POLITICIANS trying to wave the flag on a budget,let’s hope nobody calls our bluff!
You have to remember,the design of QE CLASS was at a time of Libya/Bosnia conflicts,and a support carrier was seen as being key! ( RAF were having to fly long uneconomic missions),A carrier with good local air superiority and strike with a “large” compliment of various helicopter s to support ground activities was seen as key (Neither CHINA OR RUSSIA was seen as ANY sort of threat then:both short term or long term!) and a strike carrier, as we would see it: unnecessary and to expensive. I AGREE this was a mistake and we have to live with what we have!
Having been involved in both the requirement and design stages for QEC going back thirty years I have never – not once – heard it referred to as a support carrier. To be fair, it was never referred to as a Strike Carrier either, noting that the term “Carrier Strike” refers to the capability delivered by the ship and its airwing. It was also coined to some degree to emphasise the intent to deliver effect (aka stuff that goes bang) against land targets, to avoid the accusation that the ship was just there to defend itself.
The intent was always to be able to deliver similar capabilities to a US CVN, just not at the same scale in terms of threat scale, sorties / day and maximum package size among others.
Not particularly relevant to the design or operation of QEC.
I repeat, the QEC was designed against a set of requirements. At no stage was the phrase “support carrier” ever used.
The requirements for QEC included multi-domain roles inc ASW, AEW, DCA, OCA, maritime strike and land strike. They were derived from operational analysis scenarios, rather than the idea of being like this or that type of ship.
Given that the LHA is primarily to land and then support a USMC force ashore, rather than the multi-domain role of QEC, it’s fairly obvious it isn’t that.
Answer the Questions?…I have great pride in THE QEC, and I think they are, in many ways more suited to current world than STRIKE carriers,but STRIKE CARRIERS they are NOT! (Also if you were not aware the INVINCIBLES WERE REFERRED TO AS THROUGH-DECK CRUISERS as a political dodge in the 1970s)
Oh dear. The reason I asked whether English was your first language was a combination of your comprehension skills and your Upper Case Tourettes.
I was referring to an airwing that could conduct multi-domain roles, rather than a specific aircraft. Still what do I know having spent time on all three CVS, both QEC and a couple of USN carriers to boot. Not to mention plenty of time at Heron and Seahawk.
It’s all about what you can do with the aircraft aboard. For example CVS could only do limited DCA and ASW with the usual airwing. Change the mix and it could – just about – do a limited strike, but not ASW. CDG does not usually support ASW. Much of it is about the number of aircraft you can embark and where you can park them.
Now – speaking of answering questions, perhaps you could explain where you got the idea “support carrier” was ever a thing?
In the boiler room? You still haven’t answered me, do french/american strike carriers have these multi-domain aircraft you speak of as standard,as for support carriers,that is obviously the purpose they were built for even if like strike carriers this was not stated: are you suggesting that all carriers are strike carriers (note: I’ve put everything in lower case to make it easier for you, as you seem to be offended by anything else).
Ok, for the third time – let’s see if the hard of thinking get it this time – multi-domain is not a type of aircraft. It’s the roles the combination of aircraft on the ship can deliver.
So if you want DCA you need an AEW asset and fighters. If you want to do land strike you need strike aircraft, potentially SEAD assets and fighters. If you want to do ASW you need ASW aircraft.
Interestingly the MN does not routinely embark ASW assets aboard CdG, whereas both the USN and RN do.
The larger your airwing and deck, the more of these you can do concurrently and against more capable threats. Nothing to do with invented designations like “support carrier”.
Feel were getting nowhere very fast,my argument is based on historical design intentions,yours as I understand,on aircraft compliment and their capabilities, I hope you enjoyed the argument & banter and hope to communicate with you in future…
Your “argument” is based on imaginary designations with no basis in fact, coupled with a lack of comprehension skills and an incontinent predilection for upper case.
If I had seen that sub (top photo) inside a drydock …..my first impression would have been that it could have (i.e. might have been) involved in a collision with a small boat, or large barge, or even a small coastal ship when it was operating at a very shallow depth.
Please note that the “rip” of missig tiles is about 10m wide (not “long”) – so that missing patch of tiles is wholly consistent with a moving ship’s hull crossing just over the top of the sub – whilst the submarine itself was down at about “periscope depth” (note 1).
A crossing – both at right angles and at very low speeds – thus could, quite-easily, explain, the ripping of these tiles off the top section of the sub’s outer hull amidships.
———–
However IF it was a “incident” – which something I am very definitely not sure about
…..then the next very obvious – and very next question – has to be:
“so why is there no damage apparent to the outer casing??” (which can be very clearly seen in his hi-res photo)
Baffling all round…. —————-
Thus this one could either be a possible case of:
a collision – so the subs skippers bo-bo’ed on the navigation: i.e. “he (or she) should have gone to specsavers“
OR
it might be possible that those two large areas of tiles were stuck on (probably quite-recently) using the “wrong type of superglue” – i.e. in that case, the yard bo-bo’ed: i.e. “he(or she) should have gone to specsavers“
(which, with “bad glue”, this has happened before….. it happens when the old glue is being used well after its “best before” date printed on the yellow warning label and.or the glueing is being done at the wrong temperature or humidity levels)
Conclusion
Either way = this is a very bad show chaps (and chapes’s) …
to let a fighting subamrine out to sea in such a poor condition:
and more of a mystery why the RN allowed this photo (top) out publically !!!!!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
and yes…. I am more than aware that when using a modern submarine’s “optics” = the submarine does not have to be up at the traditional “periscope depth” to use its periscope
I get the lack of UK escorts, but I have to say our ability to call on allies to form a carrier group is something to be admired. It’s an impressive force
It certainly looks very intimidating.
It’s genuinely our superpower. Friendly nations across the globe. It’s something Russia, China and I’m afraid to say the current US administration doesn’t understand.
Nations are friendly until you stop paying your fair share of the defence bills – then it’s just a matter of being taken advantage of.
Then that nation that’s not paying throws a paddy about taxes and tariffs and dumps all your tea into a harbour 🤷
Ironic isn’t it 😂
Nations don’t have permanent friends, just mutual interests.
And don’t give a rat’s about. Grow up son.
The whole deployment is a glorified photo shoot. Our allies are getting the positive news from it, just like we are.
Also gives their forces a chance to train alongside other nations to learn from them.
So in their interests to support rather than them just helping out.
Whether those allies would join during a war situation, is anyone’s guess. History of the Falklands would suggest probably not
Nice to see HMS Astute taking part, after there had been some speculation that the group might be without an SSN.
Great photo, impressive.
What is interesting is the three “Tide families” in line. Also impressive is the 12 F35B visible on the flight deck. Even with only 12 fifth-gen fighters, “relative” power is exceeding that of 30-40 Sea Harriers RN could have deployed in 1990s. F35B is one of the top end fighters of the day, while Sea Harriers will be struggling against “normal” fighter of the day, F-16s.
Big difference.
“ of 30-40 Sea Harriers RN could have deployed in 1990s”
I don’t think there ever were 30-40 deployable Sea Harriers in the 90’s? If I was to guess I’d say 24-8.
Robert Blay will know better than I can recall.
Yes. 20 Sea Harriers went South to Falklands later joined by 8 more . It was a bit earlier than 90s.
But Invincible only had 8, so 2 carriers in 90s might be 16 , with helicopters of course
Yeah Falklands was very different, nearly a decade before the 90s. Hermes was much bigger than the Invincible-class and carried 24 harriers on that deployment (not sure if all at once) along with quite a few helicopters.
The invincible-class could carry 16 and sometimes did but typically just one squadron of 7-9. If you theoretically had 2 carriers available for deployment at one time you could have had 32 between them but I don’t know if availability hit that, and it would make more sense to have 16 on one in an air superiority/strike role, and 8 on the other with a larger complement of helicopters for ASW.
26 SHAR and GR3 (allowing for losses) plus minimum of 10 Helo
This article gives a better picture of the numbers, types and retirement dates.
I hadn’t realised the price of the F-35 had already doubled by then.
LINK
Retirement:
The Sea Harrier was withdrawn from service in 2006 and the last remaining aircraft from 801 Naval Air Squadron were decommissioned on 29 March 2006. The plans for retirement were announced in 2002 by the Ministry of Defence.
The aircraft’s replacement, the F-35 Lightning II, was originally due in 2012, the MoD arguing that significant expenditure would be required to upgrade the fleet for only six years of service.
By March 2010, the F-35’s introduction had been pushed back to 2016 at the earliest, with the price doubled.
Would anyone happen to know if we intend to purchase the AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) for external carriage on our F-35Bs, or the NSM?
I noted on Jane’s yesterday that Norway has started to receive the NSM for their F-35As.
Norway has received the first Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA) Joint Strike Missile (JSM) to equip its fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) combat aircraft.
The Norwegian Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced the milestone, saying the first of an undisclosed number of missiles to equip the Royal Norwegian Air Force’s (RNoAF’s) recently received fleet of 52 F-35As was handed over at Ørland Air Base on 28 April.
“Norway has become the first country to receive the full delivery of all its planned F-35 fighter jets… Today, the [Norwegian] Armed Forces have also received their first super missile from the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency and KDA.
Work will now begin to stockpile the JSM missile at Ørland Air Base,” Minister of Defence Tore Sandvik said at the handover ceremony.
As noted by Janes Weapons: Air Launched, the JSM is a Norwegian-developed precision‐guided stand‐off missile, optimised for use by aircraft against both naval and land targets.
The low-observable weapon provides anti‐ship attack capability to combat aircraft by using imaging infrared (IIR) guidance and a 120 kg impact or time delay warhead.
Designed for internal and external carriage aboard the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A and the carrier variant (CV) F-35C (it is too large for the internal weapons bays of the short take-off and vertical landing [STOVL] F-35B), the JSM has an estimated speed of Mach 0.9 and a range in excess of 275 km.”
No
But the Harriers of ’82 were not the same as the ones around by the late 1990’s as those were FA2’s that were introduced from ~1993 onwards.
Most of the FA1s were meant to have been remanufactured to FA2 but that didn’t quite go to plan and so some new builds were ordered.
Yes. This professional level modeller made his own FRS1 and FA.2 fuselage kits ( around 22 in long), which show the forward nose change and the rear fuselage plug to balance it out
I always wondered how BAE made it….!!
Supportive Bolke
This is a prize example of what the marketing department of BAE mean by using the phrase:
“Advanced Composite Materials”
Peter (irate Taxpayer)
Currently 18 onboard building up to 24 by the end of the deployment.
That image of Astute with officers on the conning tower is rather snazzy.
New profile pic, methinks.
PS Why is Tideforce with the group? Are they just crossing over, I don’t remember anything about her being in the Med.
Op PhotoOp?
It is another very large grey hull adding mass.
Hopefully the RFA crew enjoyed this CSG form up in lovely Mediterranean weather.
Talking of PhotoOp…did anyone see Sir KIER at the end of the runway on PoW…
Strikeforce Esso vibe strong in the published pictures.
Not a great show of force — just highlights how threadbare the RN has become.
Hopefully this is the low point and things are on the up.
It’s a great show of force from a united NATO, deploying globally.
The Canadians are absent
Chris
You have, quite obviously, not been following the news today…
There is a very good reason for the Canadian Navy being absent….
The new PM of Canada – who whom once was (incidentially) the former governor of the Bank of England – is now rapidly reconfiguring all of the Royal Canadian Armed Forces to defend the entire country against a northwards invasion by the USA
It must be true = it was was on BBC Radio 4 this lunchtime…. !!!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
CANADA has finally committed to the update of its armed forces, Past Liberal Governments have been ridiculed by fellow NATO members, Few of these countries sympathies with them over TRUMP (IN PRIVATE) and it will be interesting to see what direction the new government takes AFTER THE ELECTION!..
First Canada must take Greenland for themselves , with Danish ‘collaboration’ like danes did in WW2.
We should take Iceland then.
Thats independent now , but GB still has a 1917 ‘first option’ on Greenland if Denmark gives it up. The king could pass it onto his realm of Canada ?
CANADA v USA I wonder who will win? Let’s ask the expert,my local bookmaker!
History suggests Canada!
Do you think they’ll claim Greenland, raise the flag and leave a bottle of whisky? Hans Island writ large.
Regardless of the cheeky response, They were supposed to participate, and did not. This is the issue with international coalitions, everyone talks a big game because it’s free. Then you have to see who actually shows up and pays the bill.
IF TRUMPS=USA was to take GREENLAND and/or CANADA….
WHAT WOULD WE DO????
As we seem to be going by historic precedents on this thread: we’d set fire to the White House and ask the Russians to arbitrate on the price of slaves.
Could be a mechanical that is being resolved?
Or they could be on another planned tasking?
They physically arrived in the UK.
All
If the USA decided to invade Canada then – especially given the existing huge weaknesses in all of Canada’s defences – I strongly suspect that that all nine Canadian provinces would soon be overun in just few days by the elite US National Parks Service (US-NPS)
……even despite Elon Musk’s recent budget cuts to US-NPS (note 1)
The US NPS would then, obviously as part of the Donald’s coordinated plan, move onto overland and across the ice to invade Greenland.
That would leave the rest of the US defence commmunity – such diverse (note 2) organisations as USN, USAF, US Army, 50 state National Guard units, FEMA, CIA, NSA, SpaceX, NASA, DIA, FBI, NGIA, MCI,DofE, Homeland Security, AFI, Wal-Mart, ODNI etc etc – to continue to focus on collecting those huge new tariffs on all Chinese imports into the US Rustbelt
——————
However that possibility of the US-NPS soon crossing the 49th parallel now raises some very interesting constitutional issues for us here in the UK;
Does the royal family own land in Canada? – Geographic FAQ Hub: Answers to Your Global Questions
Therefore I strongly suspect that “our charlie” (note 3) might well have secret motive behind inviting “The Donald” to an completely unprecedented second state visit here in London this coming September
Details have yet to be arranged, whowever I have to ask:
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note1.
Please see Navy Lookout, about a month ago, if you don’t understand this comment about the military capabilities of the elite US-NPS
Note 2.
“Diverse” is now a banned word in the land of the free (the USA)
So I will use it here and now, probably for the last time here on NL…..
.., just before former DPP Kier decides to follow suit and ban it here…
Note 3
For those of you reading this who do’t know him – like those of you crossing the Channel (note 4) in small boats today – “our Charlie” is head of state here in the UK
Note 4
Often incorrectly called “La Marche” by little froggie in his posts here on NL
That is what the USA thought in 1812. It didn’t work out!
David MacDonald
Very true!
However, back in 1812, the US was not the military superpower it is today…
For example, their best elite military organisation – the aforementioned United Sates National Park Service – was only founded on the 25th August 1916
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Peter
As you want to use the french wording, do it right: it’s La MaNche, not La Marche.
Then, “La ville de Quebec” may have been recalled (I don’t know actually), because she is very symbolic.
During the Independance War in 1775, for the first time the young US republic tried to “free or liberate” (it was already the wording meaning “to invade”, except for France in 1944 wich was actually liberated) the “occupied” ex-french colony, which was the most populated part of Canada,
So, the USA obviously wanted to conquer Canada.
The army they sent from New York to Montreal wanted first to rally Quebec, where the ex-french settlers were attented to be happy with their arrival.
BUT the ex-French settlers decided to defend Canada against the USA, and besides the numerous indian tribes which were their traditionnal allies (remember Fenimore Cooper, only the Mohawks were allied with the British Lobsters), they fight alongside the small British garrison of Quebec and repelled the invaders. The US survivors were chased and killed in the forest by Indians and the US army was totally destroyed.
This was the famous “Quebec city battle”
Afterwards the ex-french settlers were rewarded by the King.
It’s the reason why:
1/ French is an official Canadian language.
2/ Catholicism is recognised as an official religion
3/ The governor’s guard (same uniforms as King’s guard) relief in Quebec happens with all orders told in French language👍
4/ Claiming for Quebec independance is stupid
Little Froggy
Thank you for giving me the correct French spelling of the translation of “The English Channel”
Now then, with the diplomatic smalltalk over with: please let me “cut to the chase”
If Donald Trump invades Canada next week, is your President Macron planning to declare war and help to defend Quebec?
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Peter
Next question?
What French military asset could help?
The French navy has an “OPV” stationned at St Pierre et Miquelon, close to Canada. It’s an ex-fishery ship transformed and armed with a 12,7mm HMG.
Is it enough?
I wonder what would happen if the 6 or so Western provinces of Canada (RICH) were to decide to join USA as separate states, and the 3 or so Eastern (French Poor) remain independent …?
Nig e
Good question.
The richest always have more to lose than the poorest. It’s the way the revolutions come… So the poorest Canadians Province are less in trouble with the tariffs war.
And for the Western Canadian envy to join the USA, it’s not the feeling that my sister, who is living in British Columbia and married with a true anglosaxon guy, is reporting.
It seems (it’s not a poll!) that the US society is not so attractive: too violent for Canadian minds, and the canadian “NHS” is far more efficient than US Care, amongst other differences in the ways of living.
And when I say “too violent”, it’s not to mean that the Canadian people didn’t like weapons: the average number of fire arms per capita is higher in Canada than in USA. They just don’t use them to kill each other.
I remember a time when Quebec pushed to breakaway until oil and other raw materials were discovered in the west,not much unity there but money talks!
Nig e
You’re probably right, I wasn’t there.
The French/frogs need to realise the English are not just the ‘AngloSaxons’ in the same way the French are not all Franks. The English took the Angle name but is an umbrella name of Celts, Saxons, jutes, Danes, Fresians, later Normans (only part French) and so on. There are more Celts who are English than Celts in Wales. Just say English.
Wasp snorter
“Correct” as would say Peter, and DNA analysis could be surprising.
Many French people living in what is today “Brittany” are directly descending (correct word?) from the Britain inhabitants who leaved after the Roman Legions removal, when they had to face Saxons (and Danes, etc) invaders.
This “saxon” invasion has been a booster for the “Brit” invasion of what was named “Armorique” during the 5th century, and therefore it was renamed “Brittany”.
And it explains the tumultuous relationship during centuries between the Duke of Brittany and the “King of the Franks”, and after the “King of France”.
I doubt that much would change! Can’t see massive numbers of crazy,wild shooting Yanks moving north of the border,to cold for them! As for NHS I suspect that could easily be protected in negotiations!
Nig e
I have no idea of what can happen in our DT world.
Little Froffy
I assume that great uncertainity in the world today is why the French are now very pleased that they have always maintained their nation’s own independent nuclear detterent.
The “Force De Dissusion”
The French Nuclear Deterrent – House of Commons Library
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Peter,
I think everybody would be pleased with less uncertainity in the world.
The first work for building up this FND began after WWII when US-French relationship was very compromized (De Gaulle was not friendly, decolonisation war in Indochina, etc.).
At this time the USA agreed to help GB to buid a BND, but they didn’t want to do the same for the Froffies.
With bad or good reasons, it doesn’t matter now.
So France has to buid it from scratch. It was happy that Curie and some other nuclear scientists were French, it means there were some “nuclear scientist culture” in the country.
About nuclear anglo-french cooperation, both countries should have taken advantage of the bad “Suez experiment” in 1956 to better link their nuclear military cooperation.
They didn’t.
And for now, what is interesting is that Turquiey is willing to follow the same path, with the help of Chineses and Russians, who are building electronuclear plants in the country.
Hello ?
HMCS Ville de Quebec arrived a few days ago to join the CSG25
https://www.navylookout.com/hmcs-ville-de-quebec-arrives-in-plymouth-ahead-of-joining-carrier-strike-group-deployment/
As stated in the article, the Canadian frigate had detoured to Rota for a logistics stop. You didn’t read the words?
Does amyome know why it looks like all the paint / anechoic tiles appear to have come off Astutes sail,and rear casing? The rear casing looks like they’ve had a crash somewhere!
Sunlight?
The header photo is awesome.
Come CSG29 hopefully ESPS Mendez Nunez will be a Type 26 frigate to complete the pack.
Donaldson
In one of the other photos…
……..-it was great to see the crabbs F35 making its ascent = fast off the PoW’s ski-jump and the climbing up high into the atmosphere (note 1)
Peter (irate Taxpayer)
Note 1….Unlike the last time the crabbs were operating in the Med …..during CSG21
While I’m usually the first to poke fun at the Crabs, in fairness, the pilot who misplaced his jet on CSG21 was a Foo.
N-a-B
You can correct me if I am wrong here,however:
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
Note 2.
‘The largest concentration of UK naval air power since the 1970s.’ Doesn’t Corporate count?
As I’ve stated in the past, The QE CLASS was not designed as a STRIKE CARRIER! It was always designed as a SUPPORT CARRIER, IT has few of the desired features of a STRIKE CARRIER and should not be used as such (Has more in common with USS AMERICA THAN USS NIMITZ) POLITICIANS trying to wave the flag on a budget,let’s hope nobody calls our bluff!
Let’s hope your caps lock key doesn’t get stuck or we might have to call you an ambulance.
Just pointing out that the vessels were designed
Nope.
You have to remember,the design of QE CLASS was at a time of Libya/Bosnia conflicts,and a support carrier was seen as being key! ( RAF were having to fly long uneconomic missions),A carrier with good local air superiority and strike with a “large” compliment of various helicopter s to support ground activities was seen as key (Neither CHINA OR RUSSIA was seen as ANY sort of threat then:both short term or long term!) and a strike carrier, as we would see it: unnecessary and to expensive. I AGREE this was a mistake and we have to live with what we have!
The only thing stopping it from being a strike carrier is the weapons on F35
Hugo
Agreed….
….indeed you have hit the nail right on the head with your comment
Peter (irate Taxpayer)
The F35B range was not seen as a problem on a support carrier! what is a strike carrier if it can’t hit a target at range!
F35B is not short ranged
Having been involved in both the requirement and design stages for QEC going back thirty years I have never – not once – heard it referred to as a support carrier. To be fair, it was never referred to as a Strike Carrier either, noting that the term “Carrier Strike” refers to the capability delivered by the ship and its airwing. It was also coined to some degree to emphasise the intent to deliver effect (aka stuff that goes bang) against land targets, to avoid the accusation that the ship was just there to defend itself.
The intent was always to be able to deliver similar capabilities to a US CVN, just not at the same scale in terms of threat scale, sorties / day and maximum package size among others.
USS AMERICA OR USS NIMITZ?
One is an LHA (or a sub-surface CV), one is a CVN. What’s your point?
Which one do you consider closest to QMC? An enlarged USS AMERICA OR A down sized NIMITZ?
Sorry! QEC
Not particularly relevant to the design or operation of QEC.
I repeat, the QEC was designed against a set of requirements. At no stage was the phrase “support carrier” ever used.
The requirements for QEC included multi-domain roles inc ASW, AEW, DCA, OCA, maritime strike and land strike. They were derived from operational analysis scenarios, rather than the idea of being like this or that type of ship.
Given that the LHA is primarily to land and then support a USMC force ashore, rather than the multi-domain role of QEC, it’s fairly obvious it isn’t that.
I like the idea of a multi-domain carrier as reference to QEC,can see similarities with defining QEC with INVISIBLE CLASS ASW “CRUISES “of the 1970s
Err, no. Multi-domain refers to the roles its aircraft carry out.
It’s an aircraft carrier. Designed from the off to be such (unlike the Invincible-class). End of.
INVINCIBLES did EVERYTHING YOU mentioned but on a smaller scale?They were viewed as carriers after FALKLANDS!
Do the French/American STRIKE CARRIERS have these MULTI-DOMAIN AIRCRAFT,and if not why not?
Is English your first language?
Answer the Questions?…I have great pride in THE QEC, and I think they are, in many ways more suited to current world than STRIKE carriers,but STRIKE CARRIERS they are NOT! (Also if you were not aware the INVINCIBLES WERE REFERRED TO AS THROUGH-DECK CRUISERS as a political dodge in the 1970s)
Oh dear. The reason I asked whether English was your first language was a combination of your comprehension skills and your Upper Case Tourettes.
I was referring to an airwing that could conduct multi-domain roles, rather than a specific aircraft. Still what do I know having spent time on all three CVS, both QEC and a couple of USN carriers to boot. Not to mention plenty of time at Heron and Seahawk.
It’s all about what you can do with the aircraft aboard. For example CVS could only do limited DCA and ASW with the usual airwing. Change the mix and it could – just about – do a limited strike, but not ASW. CDG does not usually support ASW. Much of it is about the number of aircraft you can embark and where you can park them.
Now – speaking of answering questions, perhaps you could explain where you got the idea “support carrier” was ever a thing?
In the boiler room? You still haven’t answered me, do french/american strike carriers have these multi-domain aircraft you speak of as standard,as for support carriers,that is obviously the purpose they were built for even if like strike carriers this was not stated: are you suggesting that all carriers are strike carriers (note: I’ve put everything in lower case to make it easier for you, as you seem to be offended by anything else).
Ok, for the third time – let’s see if the hard of thinking get it this time – multi-domain is not a type of aircraft. It’s the roles the combination of aircraft on the ship can deliver.
So if you want DCA you need an AEW asset and fighters. If you want to do land strike you need strike aircraft, potentially SEAD assets and fighters. If you want to do ASW you need ASW aircraft.
Interestingly the MN does not routinely embark ASW assets aboard CdG, whereas both the USN and RN do.
The larger your airwing and deck, the more of these you can do concurrently and against more capable threats. Nothing to do with invented designations like “support carrier”.
Feel were getting nowhere very fast,my argument is based on historical design intentions,yours as I understand,on aircraft compliment and their capabilities, I hope you enjoyed the argument & banter and hope to communicate with you in future…
Your “argument” is based on imaginary designations with no basis in fact, coupled with a lack of comprehension skills and an incontinent predilection for upper case.
About as enjoyable as a bout of dysentery….
She was the SSN or CSG 21. No other boats free?
Grant and Jason
It is only now that I have just realised what the two of you were talking about!
This one for background info:
Royal Navy submarines and non-acoustic sensor technology | Navy Lookout
—
If I had seen that sub (top photo) inside a drydock …..my first impression would have been that it could have (i.e. might have been) involved in a collision with a small boat, or large barge, or even a small coastal ship when it was operating at a very shallow depth.
Please note that the “rip” of missig tiles is about 10m wide (not “long”) – so that missing patch of tiles is wholly consistent with a moving ship’s hull crossing just over the top of the sub – whilst the submarine itself was down at about “periscope depth” (note 1).
A crossing – both at right angles and at very low speeds – thus could, quite-easily, explain, the ripping of these tiles off the top section of the sub’s outer hull amidships.
———–
However IF it was a “incident” – which something I am very definitely not sure about
…..then the next very obvious – and very next question – has to be:
Baffling all round….
—————-
Thus this one could either be a possible case of:
Conclusion
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
and yes…. I am more than aware that when using a modern submarine’s “optics” = the submarine does not have to be up at the traditional “periscope depth” to use its periscope
The missing acoustic panels are not a problem, she’s still sea worthy and a well valued asset. Btw, Ever heard of Smoke and mirrors ?
Jonny
To now set the record straight.
I never said either:
So please don’t “do a Alistair Campbell” – and delberately misquote me!
—————————-
The missing tiles definitely are an issue,
However, obvously on the balance of risk, somebody has clearly decided to take that risk
Which, as I said orginally, is very very unusal…..
…. despite these ten boats eating up a full half of the RN’s entire annual budget!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
There is no “smoke and mirrors” involved here = just bad engineering practices.
and so also no excuse for “not enough money“.