The 7½-month CSG25 deployment begins today with the departure of HMS Prince of Wales from Portsmouth. Last week we spoke to the Commander of the UK Carrier Strike Group and some of those deploying about the preparations and the early phases of the voyage.
HMS Prince of Wales has been undergoing a Fleet Time Support Period since January with additional capability insertion. This included the installation of hundreds of metres of optic fibre cables to support additional warfare equipment. The FTSP was only just completed ahead of sailing and the ship will have to conduct a few days of propulsion and other trials before the carefully sequenced arrival of aircraft can begin, likely off the South West approaches toward the end of this week. The first serial for the CSG will be an air defence exercise (ADEX) off the coast of France.
The flagship has now developed full procedures for closing up to state 1 and state 2 readiness for combat, more in line with that of a frigate or destroyer. Previously, the QEC carriers had operated a unique and less intense closed-up scheme. Recent training has built on some of the lessons from HMS Diamond’s time in the Red Sea. In sustained combat operations, it is important to adopt the optimum posture which gives the crew to opportunities to rest while keeping the ship ready to react to threats quickly.
Multinational integration
CSG25 will again underscore the Royal Navy’s commitment to work with key allied navies. From the outset, the strike group will include the Norwegian frigate, HNoMS Roald Amudsen, Canadian frigate, HMCS Ville de Québec and the Spanish frigate ESPS Mendez Nunez joining as the group moves into the Mediterranean theatre.
Integration of these allied units will be enabled through a combination of Force Integration Training (FIT) at sea, and previous synthetic and live training exercises. Equivalent units, HNoMS Otto Sverdrup, ESPS Cristόbal Colόn, HMCS Charlottetown joined the UK CSG during exercise Steadfast Defender in March last year. As NATO partners, these navies already have common Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP) which provides a strong baseline for operating together, but working in a carrier strike group demands a greater degree of cohesion. This is especially true for CSG25 where the RN can only manage to field 2 of its own escorts and will have to rely on foreign partners to a larger extent.
COMUKCSG James Blackmore said “Of course I’ve done this a number of times as the Commodore on exercises; Firedrake [Sept 2023], Steadfast Defender [Mar 2024] and Strike Warrior [Oct 2024], I’m very used to integrating partner, and UK, ships at short notice. It will be slow and safe to start with but very quickly up to flying speed”.
Synthetic exercise Virtual Warrior was held recently, which allowed the warfare teams from the participating allied ships to get to know each other, build cohesion, rehearse joint tactics, and harmonise operational procedures in a risk-free environment. This preparation will help enable the group to move swiftly to full operating rhythm once underway.
Crucially, the deployment benefits from the corporate memory accumulated over the past few years. Many personnel now have multiple CSG deployments under their belts, and the lessons learned from HMS Queen Elizabeth’s operational tours are being brought directly into Prince of Wales’ maiden strike deployment.
Air group consolidation
The carrier will embark a significantly larger and more complex air group than previously embarked on either of the QEC carriers. Initially, 18 F-35B Lightning jets will join HMS Prince of Wales, the largest concentration of British fast jets embarked and RN carrier since the last deployment of HMS Ark Royal (IV) in 1978. A total of 9 Merlins, 2 Wildcat helicopters and three flights of UAVs will complete the initial air group on the carrier. HMS Richmond will carry another Merlin plus a Wildcat embarked on HMS Dauntless and on HNoMS Amundsen.
To date the maximum number of UK F-35s embarked at any one time has been eight. The step change to 18, and later 24, jets presents a significant scaling challenge in terms of deck operations, hangar management, sortie generation, and maintenance support. Every part of the aviation support system will have to adapt and scale to meet the demands of a much larger, busier flight deck. While HMS Queen Elizabeth carried out the first Carrier Strike Group deployment in 2021, this is Prince of Wales’ first operational voyage with a full complement of fixed-wing aircraft.
The ground crews from RAF Marham have visited the ship for familiarisation but a large percentage have not been to sea before and will have to be rapidly brought up to speed with living on a warship and trained to respond to fires and emergencies. Captain Colin McGannity, Air Wing Commander (‘Wings’) said: “The seven air squadrons involved are preparing with help from RAF Marham, RNAS Culdrose and RNAS Yeovilton for this huge endeavour with some really talented and dedicated people. Its a huge privilege to lead that team, a career pinnacle for me.”
Work-up and integration efforts have been underway for months, building on the collective experience gained through previous exercises. Notably, Strike Warrior marked the first operational embarkation of 809 Naval Air Squadron, who join the more experienced 617 Squadron for this deployment. The emphasis has not only been on pilot proficiency but also across the ship, from the bridge and Flyco, to air traffic controllers, flight deck crews and maintainers. Carrier qualification refreshes and staged integration drills will take place as the group transits toward the Mediterranean.
Synthetic training environments have also played a key role in preparation. These have allowed bridge teams, Flyco personnel and deck handlers to rehearse complex flight deck operations in safety and with flexibility, building muscle memory and procedural fluency before real-world operations commence.
The F-35 force will reach a total of 24 later in the deployment, achieving the tick in the box needed for F-35 FOC, although this level will not be sustained for the whole time. A significant number of jets will fly back to the UK with tanker support already allocated. This neatly illustrates the tension between the need to maximise the power of the carrier’s main armament (especially East of Suez) and the desire to return jets and people in the UK to keep the ongoing generation of the Lightning Force on track.
Logistics alternatives
A key area of development during CSG25 is the advancement of uncrewed logistics. The strike group will not deploy with a dedicated solid stores support ship such as RFA Fort Victoria, which remains in need of major refit. Instead, support will be provided by RFA Tidespring, which can handle limited solid stores transfers, and HNoMS Maud, the Norwegian Navy’s logistics support vessel. Both offer some capability for moving food and essential supplies, though they are not direct substitutes for a solid support ship.
To mitigate these limitations, the RN plans to test and expand its use of Malloy T-150 logistic drones. These will carry smaller loads, typically around 20kg, which accounted for 80% of all resupply loads by quantity during CSG21. Using drones frees up helicopters for mission-critical sorties and the aim is to develop a scalable fleet of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) capable of routine inter-ship deliveries, enhancing operational agility.
Nonetheless, the absence of a full-fledged solid support ship imposes constraints, particularly on the ability to reload weapons at sea, especially if the group is in combat. HMS Prince of Wales has full magazines and there is a contingency plan for replenishment at resupply points agreed with allies around the globe if required. This patchwork approach to logistics, while workable, is much less flexible than organic munitions supply from an auxiliary within the group underscores the pressing requirement for the much-delayed Fleet Solid Support ships.
Although rather over-claiming to be the “the backbone of UK Carrier Strike Group operations”, the RAF will also provide some logistic support to operation HIGHMAST with its air mobility fleet, airlifting and pre-positioning supplies. C-17 and A400M aircraft will deliver supplies and personnel to allied airfields on the route. Voyager tankers will also provide air-air refuelling for F-35s joining and leaving the group.
Decisions for the politicians
With the growing instability in the Middle East, particularly in the Red Sea, questions remain over whether CSG25 might be redirected toward potential strike operations against the Houthi threat. The group will transit the region as part of its deployment plan, but the possibility of contributing to deterrence or even kinetic operations remains open. Recently the US has stepped up its campaign against the Houthis, and attacks on merchant shipping have declined dramatically. However, commercial traffic through the Red Sea is still below half that of peacetime levels and the threat remains significant. The French Navy recently released a video showing a FREMM-class frigate destroying a Houthi drone at uncomfortably close range using her Oto-Melara 76mm Super Raid gun. The Houthis have also managed to shoot down at least six USAF MQ-9 Reaper drones in the last 6 weeks alone.
Any decision to engage in Yemen remains a political judgement. COMUKCSG understandably would not be drawn on whether he expects to conduct offensive operations in the Red Sea but said: “I am absolutely ready to, one to defend myself, two to undertake strike operations at any stage of this deployment, as directed by government, specifically where that may or may not happen, is a choice for others. My part of the bargain, if you like, is to be ready and I will be.”
Although the CSG can be redirected in response to events, there is a strong commitment to participate in exercise Talisman Sabre off Australia, which begins in mid-July. With participation in NATO exercises in the Mediterranean before passing through the Suez Canal planned, this dictates the group will have limited time in the Red Sea, if Talisman Sabre is deemed the higher priority.
There is also the delicate matter of whether to send HMS Richmond or HMS Dauntless on a Freedom of Navigation operation (FONOP) through the Taiwan Strait. In a sensible move to maintain military-to-military lines of communication, the Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Radakin, recently met with Chinese counterparts and may have discussed this very issue. Chinese attempts to take control of international waters in the South and East China Sea needs to be countered but the UK government appears conflicted about whether to pander to Beijing for economic reasons or take a tougher stance on maritime bullying.
Operation HIGHMAST is a defence-wide effort and promises to be an exciting deployment for those involved. World events will likely see changes to carefully laid plans but this is a well-prepared and flexible force.
HMNZS Te Kaha, will join the UK Carrier Strike Group, which leaves Portsmouth today, in the Indian Ocean.GOV.UK
BZ
It says “The Houthis have managed to shoot down at least 6 MQ9 Reaper Drones recently” …… Seriously ? Anyone got any links to this… That’s a terrible loss of expensive “World Class” drones.
I’m not sure how World Class is defined. They are good in non contested airspace but have always been totally vulnerable against serious air defences. The U.S. has other semi public and probably other “Black” drone types which are very stealthy and probably provided with self protection systems.
I hope our Protector purchase isn’t a bad Idea.
Google “Houthis shoot down Reaper drone” and you’ll find lot of links.
It depends what they are planned to be used for. If it’s reconnaissance over an enemy with mid altitude air defences then it’s a bad idea. Lots of other things they could do which are probably a good idea.
The ‘drone are the future’ bubble well and truly burst. They at good and many things, but you need many types.
Youthis aren’t really a rebel group any more . They have become the government of North Yemen- which has most of the population- and its well equipped army and air defences
To be honest they always were, a good portion of the regular army went with them along with all the major stockpiles.. it’s one of the reasons they have been slowly reducing the government enclave..even with Saudi bombing them and providing air support to the government..
Saudis attacked their neighbour Putin style after their President lost the civil war and fled the capital
Their islam-Zaydism- isnt sunni but is separate from Shia too.
Probably why TWZ has an article about Growlers deploying with a load of AGM 88E instead of the usual 2 in the Red Sea
Aaron Cross managed it with a rifle.
Most drones are slower than a WW2 bomber.
The only defences they have is altitude and a lower RCS than an aircraft.
Against high altitude SAM’s they are dead.
They don’t even have RWR or launch detection equipment, so can’t even tell if someone has actually fired a missile at them right up until bits of the airframe fall off.
At least, not unless you pay for their countermeasures pod, which takes up the hardpoint needed for the maritime search radar.
The number is now 7 this month, 22 total have been shotdown since Oct 7 2023
The actual number of MQ-9 lost over the Red Sea area of operations since 2023 is closer to 19. They have also managed to down the much more expensive RQ-4 Global Hawk.
The information is available from Reuters, Janes an other off the shelf intelligence agencies.
They’re cheaper than manned aircraft however, and you don’t have the worry of losing an aircrew (captured or killed).
Cheaper ? before inflation took off they were $33 mill each in 2021. Thats for the limited capability ( cameras only) compared to a fighter jet. Still need to be operated trained crew 24/7
The article says that the inclusion of 18 F35’s marks a step change to operations… well not really as QE had 20 last time.
I believe it had 18 initially embarked last time (2021) as well, 8 of ours and 10 USMC. Obviously the big difference is they are all British this time.
It was 8 British and 12 USMC, that makes 20.
It was
• 8 RAF 617 Dambusters Squadron
• 10 USMC VMFA-211 Wake Island Avengers
Total of 18
(During exercises some Italian F35Bs also cross-decked.)
I stand corrected. I thought from memory it was a Squadron.
It was 10 USN
USMC.
Yes but most were USN aircraft not all British.
Makes zero difference to the handling and operational abilities over the previous CSG21.
This one will step to 24 for a time.
So I read… and if that is the case then yes, it’s an increase but then a whole bunch will leave to return home and take up the empty hangers back home. It’s all Spin.
USMC not USN as the squids do not operate the Bravo and before anyone whines about VX-23, those are Marine Corps aircraft augmented to the ITF.
Ah, but they are all British.
Well, 33% might be, the rest is LM, but it’s OK, I know what you meant.
Northrop Grumman is centre fuselage and radar systems. LM only make the front fuselage and the centre wing box plus final assembly
If they get 24 UK F-35s on deck at any time during this deployment that will be a job well done. It’s worth doing what you said you’d do, even if they are only there for a photo op.
I hope we’ll still have a significant number on ship throughout the deployment, too, with the rumours that we’ll only be left with a single squadron proving to be just that, rumours.
Finally hitting that 38 figure (24 F35 + 14 helicopters) – not completely clear on what stages that number will be at 24 vs 18 vs potentially less, but even if it’s just a day it will be nice seeing a busy deck with almost 40 aircraft (almost 50 with UAVs).
That is not the designed capacity. We are a long way off getting a full load of 36-38 F35 b’s.
Peacetime is up to 24 F35s, with wartime surge up to 36 F35s.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/394/394.pdf
Yes I know that, you obviously didn’t read what I said.
I did, and was pointing out your error… unless you think we’re actually in a hot war at the moment. In which case you’re wrong about that too.
No error, not wrong. Troll someone else, It’s all you have to offer.
Correcting isn’t trolling.
Perhaps if you bothered checking your ‘facts’ before posting…?
You completely ignored what I actually wrote and chose to argue then belittle me. how sad are you ? Read it again and when you understand it, come back and apologise for being so dumb.
Actually don’t bother I can’t be doing with your trolling.
Nope. Designed for 40 with Surge of 50.
Of course, but 24 + 14 was the advertised routine air wing. While it would be nice to see exercises with 30+ jets at some point to train the capability with a busy deck and high sortie rates, it’s going to be costly and dangerous to try deploying them for months in peacetime ops.
Stop making excuses… We all know that the UK is a long way behind having the numbers these ships were designed for and that’s not including the RAF. You forget that we binned the Tornados and Harriers and many other aircraft these past 20 odd years whilst these ships were being designed and built, not to mention that there has been 8-9 years of carrier Ops so far.
Either way, It’s a disgrace and no amount of spin can disguise the sheer lack of front line fighters.
I’m not making excuses. I’m pointing out the reported routine air wing 5 years ago was meant to be 24 + 14 and it’s only just being hit now. If anything it was critical in tone.
You feeling the need to whine about them not having wartime air wings right now doesn’t have anything to do with my comment.
They don’t have Wartime wings because after all this time, we still don’t have enough for a full load… Interpret that comment as Whining, I really don’t care, It’s a sad reality and there can be no excuse.
Issue has been and accept its not great, Most of the Tornado pilots have long since retired and where not suitable for the change up to F35s.
Harrier pilots formed part of the F35B training scheme & overs were on exchange schemes with Nato partners who needed that skill set. QE class laid down with no real aircraft as BAEs were tasked to Navalise Typhoon. but screwed that pooch over the grounding of the Harrier fleet.
RAF underestimated the training scales of the F35s due to there sheer capabilities and suitable pilots coming through the fast jet program, and the pure limited capacity of suitable training aircraft, they are spending longer in the simulator’s. you get no numbers or timescales from the RAF even in the Whitepapers released.
UK F35s fleet is 37, including the new delivered @Владимир Темников the end of 2024. it was checked with operational sorties and active aircraft movements, and its estimated the UK Has 26 fully qualified F35b pilots including instructors.
2nd largest operator of the Bs outside USA, who also confirm that USN & USMC pilots making the transfer from older platforms is low.
disgrace not sure, failure maybe. but its not a Hurricane, and much like a Apache its not a Merlin. different kind of pilot….
just be proud the UK Has 2 supa Carriers with 5th gen fighters capable, name another as the Ford Class still cracking wings shooting F35s.
Britain has 41 as of a month or so back. Coming over in ones or twos and all 48 Tranche 1 by end of year
Yeah there was a new batch at the end of 2024, and wont reach frontline for 6+ months while they are harmonized the RAF calls it ???.
Its weird, even Italy which has A and B models divides ‘ownership’ between the two services. The Regia has some F35B as well as the more numerous A model. The Aviazone has its own Bs of course.
interservice politics and the airforce keeping control of fast jets or just being efficient I’m mot sure.
If you look at the wildcat force..they have created efficiency of a single structure but the army keeps operational control of its regiments that fly wildcat. So i suspect it’s the airforce keeping control.
There is no monarchy in Italy.
Regiamarina means the same as Royal Navy.
Now it is Marina Militare.
Who says I’m not proud of the two Carriers ? I’ve been with this program since birth and here we are decades later and still unable to fill them as intended…. that’s not me being negative, that’s me being realistic.
2010, a government was elected that didnt want them , delayed the build program, as well as wrecking the RN future procurement for other vessels. Id list all the defence secretaries for the 14 yrs but the list is too long
Yep They are all as bad as each other, Labour focused on 2 Carriers and ignored the Escorts to protect them. Tories focused on the escorts at the cost of the support fleet.
There is a lot of old stuff, but we have allowed the Navy to get worn out.
issue is COS staff change and usually favour there own
The ‘carrier escorts’ were under build during early 2000’s, the T45! (the last T23 was commissioned 2002 !)
The follow on build which became known as T26 was planned to be contracted to BAE when the last T45s came out of their yard.- which was Duncan in Oct 2010!
As well the Astutes, hurriedly contracted by the Conservative Gov, just 2 months before the election, before design was finished were under build as well at a different yard.
So your claims dont match the facts of the T23 and T45 timelines
yes Cameron was an utter disaster…he completely destroyed a lot. But the last Labour administration does bare some blame as well..they cut the AAW fleet to 6 and bind 3 frigates.
50 year program and the changing face of modern warfare. Slow procurement on airframe. pointless them being parked in hangers with no pilots. UK ordered 9 P-8s and we don’t have enough crews to fly them, A400s crews another reason Herc was cut. Pilot training is in crisis even for transports. 3
Like having 300 RAF Bases and 2000 aircraft POINTLESS, currently more people collecting a MOD pension, than serving.
retention and recruitment all time low, how do we fix that ?????
Recruitment for many skills is fine. The medical training is full. The Navy still does its own unlike the Army who use Capita.
Pay more for the critical trades is the answer
Johan and Duker
Put simply – and bluntly – the senior leadership of the crabbs has been repeatedly unable to make its mind up about:
This severe case of indecision has, to now – and now use the corrrect technical term – “buggered up” all attempts at reform and streamlining
This National Audit Office report from over ten year ago should be of interest…
It shows that things have not moved ove very much recently,,,,
Ministry of Defence: Training New Pilots – NAO report
Overall this has been a very clear cut case of
(Note. You need to download and read the full document)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
NOTE 1
Cranwell is yet another clear cut case of a very old stock exchange adage- that any fast moving and previously dynamic organisation goes to Rat***T very soon after it builds its own gradiose and pompous HQ
Is it true,the MOD employees over 50000 civil servants in this modern era!
These will carry smaller loads, typically around 20kg, which accounted for 80% of all resupply loads by quantity during CSG21.
80% of what?
Various spare parts and so on. Point is for 80 percent of those flights you don’t need a helicopter
My bad.
80% of what tonnage? What amount? How many trips will this thing make?
80% of the number of flights, not 80% of the tonnage. Point is 4 out of 5 transfers could have been done by these drones instead of expensive helicopters.
got any links or facts ?
It is stated in the article above.
But where are the facts to back up this and your claim ?
The Navy’s press release, BAE’s press release, Malloy’s press release. That statistic is repeated in every one.
Please don’t be facetious.
My replies have been removed… it seems you have a habit of getting them removed.
I’ve seen claims that suggest 80% would be very much a low ball estimate and that it could be closer to 95%. After all, the Malloys can carry considerably more than 20kg.
80% is the proportion of transfers that are under 20kg
95% is the proportion of transfers that the Malloy 150 can do instead of helicopters.
But then consider the benefits of aggregation if the cab is flying over anyway – may as well go with a reasonable load?
That is probably the 15% difference?
Agreed it’s going to be a judgement call on each occasion. If a cab is flying to ferry someone and there’s space then they will put the stores aboard. Pointless having the cab AND drone flying over at the same time. So yes the actual %s delivered by drone won’t match % they could have delivered.
(No doubt some of the more pedantic will claim this is a failure of the drone trial rather than recognising pragmatic common sense.)
Exactly – I think it is called logistics planning…..
Is that that 80% of helicopter flights are only carrying items below 20kg each? (very high estimate)
Or 80% by mass of the goods is below 20kg? (Reasonable, but a bit high)
Or 80% by number of the goods are below 20kg? (If so, quite low)
Or 80% of flights will now be drone flights, with the balance made up by helicopters? (could mean anything)
The claim is sufficiently vague for almost any statistic to applied?
It’s not vague, you ignore all the facts that have been presented .
or so I’m told.
My understanding is that 80% of intra-theatre [logistics] helicopter flights are only carrying items below 20kg each. Some of them will be urgent and the flight wouldn’t have happened otherwise. However, as others have pointed out, it’s possible that if a helicopter is flying for another reason, non-logistics related, someone might put a package or two on the helicopter to take advantage. So how many of those flights can be substituted with a UAV is anyone’s guess from open information.
Mars Bars and mail
29 aircraft to start with will be a good learning experience. Particularly if they’re running sustained ripples for AEW and pingers. That will have Flyco busy given the current palaver operating Merlin.
Its now four years since CSG 21 which was the last time we had anything approaching a deckful. Time to get that Lighting Force build-up sorted and start operating like this regularly.
Unfortunately it is very easy to gap a capability in a politicians simple mind but in military matters where you have interdependent complex systems and platforms operated by well trained and experienced personnel it is a huge task to fully resurrect a capability.
Successful and sustained carrier ops are just one example. I wish them all the best.
What is the story with the Merlin that you allude to?
Does it relate to the Crowsnest debacle?
Or is there something else?
He is isn’t alluding to story. He is talking about rotation of flights over a given period (which in action would be 24/7).
That’s the ripple. There is also a palaver related to deck ops with all varieties of Merlin at the minute. Entirely self-inflcited.
Really, what have they done ? Are they being a bit bureaucratic/overly cautious or is just something specific to Merlin deck ops and the carrier ?
One went into the drink last year….
So I’d imagine it is the fall out from that.
“ A Merlin Mk4 helicopter ditched during night-flying exercises with the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier near Dorset”
Sadly not. Lets just say that a paperwork “evidence” trail is now required (and missing) to operate the cab in the way it was designed and indeed how it had previously operated aboard CVS.
Ah! A paper chase all round Yeovil the Main Building and ultimately JHC!
Trouble is after a few reorganisations things do genuinely go missing.
101 – don’t ask a question unless you are sure you want to hear the answer….
The less we do the more we must have names for everything we do.
Reeks of the “all must win prizes” vibe that is suffocating our efforts at progress.
This is pretty basic stuff — we are part of NATO so working with these “foreign” ships should not be an issue.
Fibre optics — MOD / Capability insertion — everyday occurrence on streets across the land so hopefully it was done with the minimum of fuss and the minimum of cost.
Red Sea shenanigans — ground would appear to be being prepped for a trolley dash down past the hot zone with little or no active engagement in the Houthi campaign.
Might be a case that this will coincide with the next Gaza ceasefire and the Houthis have bigger fish to fry than a here today gone tomorrow CSG.
If as some suggest half the F35 complement will be returning after the Med cruise could a case not be made for sending more aircraft out on rotation?
Flexibility along with capability are surely the keys drivers for Florence and Fred.
Freedom of Navigation stuff — box ticking / performative nonsense / ego tripping?
And all the more so if the PoW is not involved.
What non NATO warships have made the passage through the Irish Sea?
Innocent passage through the North Channel — legally available to all?
No lawyer so please shout if you know the legals involved.
Russian vessels have regularly transitted the English Channel. They’re escorted by British warships, much as the Chinese will escort our warships in the SCS.
OK — the Channel angle is understood.
Navigation by right of innocent passage.
However what about the Irish Sea and the North Channel?
Both shores part of the same country and pretty narrow.
Is there a right of navigation open to all for this stretch of water?
Yes, quite a few choke points have the same country on both sides.
With the Bosporus being the most famous / radical / complex passage.
Part of the Irish sea and all of the North Channel are UK territorial waters, so very doubtful that Russian warships are permitted to transit those.
Have a close look at the laws of the sea. Provided they comply with the rules around “Innocent Passage” Russian warships can definitely transit the North Channel. The same applies to the Channel between Dover and Calais and the exits to the Baltic.
Our territorial water and any Russian transit would be illegal unless passage granted. One would hope the Irish would not grant such a request. But the Russians, they don’t follow laws.
Not so. Innocent passage rule applies for warships travelling between international waters.
It’s going to rain, so better get some Guinnes for anti-ship super missile engagement zone (SMEZ)
Irish Sea is mostly international waters – remember territory is only the 12nm limit.
North Channel mostly except the Tor head Mull Kintyre which is UK water. Then you have innocent passage for a warship.
Economic Zones arent territorial waters
Same for the South China Sea?
Ha ha… “Wolf Warriors” are all over this site !!!!
I see what you did there.
Taiwan Str is over 100km wide. China uses innocent passage around Taiwan ( and the air) all the time.
What our Eurocentric friends dont realise is that Taiwan supports Beijing’s island claims in South China Sea– it has one or 2 little islets of its own already.
So what?
Territorial ( and aviation) only extends out 12nm, the rest is international water
You are conflating the English Channel and the SCS, when they are really very different. A better comparison would be the North Sea and SCS.
I am conflating nothing — just trying to find out where innocent passage stops when up against geography.
Essentially it’s any strait that is required as a sea lane between two international points be that on the high seas or nations. If someone needs to transit through to get somewhere then they have the right.
The only time they don’t is if there is an equally convenient route.. but essentially if it takes longer is a greater distance or cost more to transit via another route they have the legal right to transit your strait.
but it has to relate to international transit.. so there is no right of transit in the bristol channel for instance.
The UK has three key straits in which rights of transit impact on our territorial waters
Strait of Dover, fair isle gap and the north channel… anyone who wants to transit these can.
Thanks — getting the idea slowly …
Fair Isle Gap — what a bloody nuisance that lot are.
Not impressed by their new ferry proposal.
Small and expensive.
Not good.
Innocent passage through the Channel is monitored in coordination with France.
Where coordination is failing, it’s when our fishermen are fighting against each other, what they do very well since the end of the Roman Empire.
Fishing is completely different matter. Its economic zones which are 200nm out from the coast. Territorial ( and aviation) only extends out 12nm.
Thank’s Duker,I know that, It was’nt the point.
The Russians are there often, dropping stuff over the side, looking a cables etc.and possibly not on the surface, the Iranians have made an appearance nearby, and the Chinese sailed through the Channel two summers ago on the way to Kaliningrad. They chucked all their rubbish overboard during the transit and warned French fisherman to keep clear of “Chinese warship”.
2024 and visited St Petersburg
https://www.newsweek.com/china-navy-ships-baltic-sea-nato-lake-russia-navy-day-1927961
Have to follow normal rules even when transiting international straits like Dover, as they are territorial waters for pollution etc.
A quick Google would tell you that innocent passage through the Irish Sea is absolutely allowed.
Irish Sea is mostly international waters except around the coast and Isle of Man. Dont have to do innocent passage at all.
Actual issue is the lack of serious Irish Navy. So the RN has to do the job…
Little Froggy
(ie because the Irish Navy is even less observable than that of Switzerland)
I would like to add that the “freeloaders” are not just the Irish State, however the biggest two freloaders are also the world’s two largest advertising agencies:
So, let me explain…..
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
Sorry little Froggie……………………
I can’t get into the habit of calling it “La Manche” = 1066 and all that…..
Peter
Don’t worry, when I communicate with English people it’s Channel and Falklands, and when I communicate with French people, it’s la Manche et Malouines 😏.
I agree with your brilliant analysis of “Irish” freeloaders, that’s a shame.
About 1066 and Hastings: il there were at this time a powerful “Saxon Navy” ancestor of RN, Guillaume (in French in the text) would have not succeeded to cross the Channel, and there would have been no Normand victory, nor “Honni soit qui mal y pense”.
No one has much of an issue with the French using french names for some of the geography of the Falklands.. after all France did actually have a colony on one of the islands…
we do on the other hand have an issue with Argentinian, that never had a colony on the island using Spanish names for a place they never owned but keep trying to invade..using a treat from 1498, giving the entire world to Spain and Portugal as justification.
But in the end the only people that have a right to name it are the people who live there.
Ahh what about the debate over Bay of Biscay ( using the Basque word – Biskaia) or the Golfe de Gascogne
I feel like Trump and the Mexico Gulf…😏
That is a very very good point.. there is national infrastructure and then there is private infrastructure that is critical but has in the past always generated tax revenues that paid for its protection…. When the companies are not paying tax that becomes a problem…
Ireland is neutral – so doesn’t have to do any lifting- , just like Austria, who unlike W Germany, accepted Stalin’s formal offer of reunification with neutrality in the early 1950s.
Nederland, Belgium and Denmark were neutrals, too, in 1939.
But they were invaded…
Belgium had a defence pact with France between the wars, after neutrality didnt work out for them in 1914.
A new young king came to the throne who was pro german, so the weak government renounce its pact with France and signed a treaty of “Friendship” with Germany – even after the Sudetenland crisis!
Switzerland was neutral too and didnt get invaded.
The invasion almost always happens in that era because you are the route to somewhere else. Ireland doesnt have that problem and is like Switzerland.
Neutral Norway was invaded by both the British and French and Germany, unknown to each other at the same time. For the same reasons!
Duker
Ireland is the key of the British Western approaches.
If Chinese warships have to come at one time, they won’t arrive by the Denmark Strait.
(because don’t have any doubt: if we-Brit/French/Italian navies- can send carriers to the Pacific, Chinese will do the same in Atlantic in some years).
If you want to cut the transatlantic underwater communications lines, you need to control the Ireland surroundings.
I do think Ireland is “the route for somewhere”.
Logistics effort looks a bit shonky.
Wooden packing cases of no discernible quality — it should be containers or nothing.
Really poor show suggesting that contractor margin comes first.
At some point the MOD will join the 21st century.
Plus — how long has Fort V needed a refit?
The MOD have had 4 years to plan for this so it would appear to be a huge miss.
Would it be MOD management being a bit obtuse in the face of issues with the FSS project delivery — rubbing the politicians noses in it to hurry them up?
Cargo drone focus — bordering on the pathetic.
20kg loads — but how many of them?
Multiple drone flights vs single helicopter journey?
Modern warfare — glacial progress unless you are in the firing line.
I fear the Yahoos are learning at ten times our rate.
FBOT
I shall pick up on one of your points:“shonky packaging”
This packaging is not just shoddy; it is a very severe fire risk
I do hope (however I somehow doubt it) that all this packing timber and polythene went into the skip just before CSG 25 sailed
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
just to confirm, packing crates were contractors and coming off.
Drone cost per flight and some of the larger drones carry 50kg pennies per mile. when compared with waiting to get a full load for a Merlin.
stocks and stores are located at various locations on route.
so would assume that logistical planning is in place rather than shove it in any where
A Captain as Wings, used to be a Cdr on the Invincible Class….
Could also be Air Group Commander aka CAG.
CO, HMS Prince of Wales, Captain Will Blackett (left) and Commander UK CSG, Commodore James Blackmore
The Captain of PoW is Captain Blackett.
The Carrier Strike Group commander is Commodore Blackmore.
The first commands one ship. The second commands the whole group.
One suspects he may be referring to Capt McGannity, who is indeed the CAG.
Two RN captains on a ship how does that work out, is Capt McGannity still referred to as Captain?
Only one CO.
USN super carriers have even more.
The XO and the CAG are captain rank, often the Chief engineer is a Capt and I remember one where the head Chaplain was a Capt too.
FREMM frigate incident — what went flying by as the drone was shot down?
Something is shown passing right to left above the bridge window.
Was that a second drone?
Real or reflection?
Hostile or friendly?
Looked pretty scary as in near miss to me.
If it was a near miss it was a good advert for the Vulcan Phalanx system.
Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Link to the video?
In the text above.
https://x.com/NavyLookout/status/1913220580544766161
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1k1zxor/french_frigate_intercepts_houthi_drone/
Found the video – the ‘second drone’ is actually a piece of the powder charge designed to blow off the muzzle cover.
Not a near miss, as you suggest. If you watch the video, it looks nothing like a drone.
As noted in the original comment I did not know what it was.
Yahoo drones vs cheap missiles vs 2 bob rockets — they can mix it up.
Powder charge?
Blow off the muzzle cover?
Can you waste the first shell?
Trajectory of the object — ???!!!???
Would be interested in reading the comments but the link doesn’t work.
Anyway — not a great advert for the 3″.
Surely its job is too start the battle at 5km out.
But Phalanx limits you to those sorts of ranges right from the get go, why would another weapon’s short range engagement be an advert for a shorter range weapon?
Layered defence might come into it.
Plus why buy a bow and arrow and fight at a sword’s length?
To continue your analogy, however, I’d much rather have to poke somebody with an arrow at close range than wave my sword pointlessly while somebody throws rocks at me.
Phalanx ‘limit’ is for the high speed sea skimming missile heading for you.
Further away slower and higher altitude targets such as helicopters and drones can be engaged at a longer range
That applies to every gun-based CIWS, though. Bofors 40mm drops from 7km against surface targets to 5km against air and 4km CIWS, if I remember correctly.
yes. The game is to start firing small bursts as soon as you can. Once its below 4km it has to be in the kill zone as theres no second chances.
The link works for me. Try searching for it with the website in the name, might have better results.
Given the rate of fire on the 76mm, wasting the first shell might not be too much of an issue, especially considering the weapons accuracy. In the video, it appears that a kill is achieved by the second or third shells, which are live.
The trajectory is all in order – the fragment is blown upwards at speed as the charge detonates, and is then picked up by the wind/motion of the ship, which causes it to fly back past the window.
I agree that the engagement seems a little short range, given the capability of the 76mm, though it is hard to judge range from the video.
OK — had another look at the footage.
Bin bag vibe from the muzzle cover in slow motion.
Interesting firing sequence — 4 rapid then 2 more later.
Range is awkward to judge but it was all large scale regarding the ship.
Firing depends when was detected.
Has nothing to do with 76. Notice it only starts firing and in 2-4 rounds the drone is destroyed.
Points to detection effort being sub optimal.
Not exactly sure what was shot down.
Home made drone being the bookies favourite.
Waiting for the Swordfish angle — dropping a torpedo during the run in.
What next from the Yahoo brainstrust — saturation attacks plus artillery?
We don’t really know – I think that the kill was a lot further out than the video appears to suggest.
So it might be time of flight for the second shell.
First shell is just to clear the weather cap off the gun.
Engagement distance was approx 1,500 – 1,800 meters based on time of flight for the 2nd and 3rd shells (2s and 1.6s respectively). The entire engagement took 2.4s from the first round. The gun fired a second 3-round salvo when the target was already destroyed, so we know it must have been the 2nd or 3rd rounds that hit.
Yes that required a frame by frame review to get the precise time stamps 😉
FYI ballistics estimated based on some fancy online calculators and known time of flight for 76mm HISP rounds here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA426717.pdf
https://www.generalstaff.org/BBOW/Progs/Big_Ballistics_1-2.htm
Really interesting that a ToF calculator is online and provides data for 76mm!
It looked to me as if some frames were cut out so ToF may not be the whole story?
That is not 1.5-1.8km
Let’s say th FREMM bridge is at 15m, that makes th horizon range 13.8km.
I know there is a formula of percentage distance to horizon but i don’t have it..
The distance can be measured when the drone is downed at sea level.
This shows the distance with drone downed at sea level.
The end of the video suggests that the 76mm is EO cued.
“ The distance to the horizon can be calculated using the formula: distance = √(2Rh), where ‘R’ is the Earth’s radius (approximately 6371 km) and ‘h’ is your height above the Earth’s surface in kilometres”
I already have that, it is 13.8km assuming the camera is at 15m.
That is not the question.
I would say that th target is at an apparent 90% of horizon distance. If it was linear then the hit would be at 12,4km. But the earth curvature means it is closer, because the more distant you see the your eyes are level with sea surface.
So 1 cm at 90% horizon line is more range than 1cm at 50% of horizon line.
If I was *guessing* I would say 5-7km out.
Yeah was to say 4-6km
That would sit with the maximum effective engagement range of a 76mm in anti air mod.
I don’t believe the French Navy’s 76mm gun use the DART guided round as per the Italian Navy. The Italians have been using the DART rounds to take out drones much further away.
hi Davey indeed the French don’t use DART rounds, although I’m not sure DART extends the effective range.. I think it’s about 8km.
To use Dart rounds you need the new mounts like those in Italian Navy that have internal space for the radar antenna.
Debris from the gun firing.
Any idea when RFA Argus will join the CSG? If it’s east of the Suez then she will need an escort or go the long way round?
Never. Now for the Marines LSG.
She is joining the CSG
CSG timings vs Lions tours — might be an angle for the Yahoos Brains Trust to investigate.
Cup Finals should also be in the mix.
Are you settled on this name now ?
??? / !!! / ??? — lost on me.
I’m sure it is.
Initially, 18 F-35B Lightning jets will join HMS Prince of Wales, the largest concentration of British fast jets embarked and RN carrier since the last deployment of HMS Ark Royal (IV) in 1978.
Didn’t HMS Hermes end up with 26 Harriers on board in 1982 (16 SHAR’s + 10 GR3’s + 10 Sea Kings)? It must have been hard work to fit them all in!
That’s correct perhaps they mean biggest peacetime deployment.
Thanks for that. Shar were a very small plane in all dimensions.
A full sized game of ‘how many planes can you fit on a pocket aircraft carrier’…
The biggest problem would have been in the hangar/workshop with. When it got crowded moving things around was hard.
Even harder on the Invincibles with the singular central lift.
The caveat you’re overlooking is “fast jets”. Harriers weren’t considered fast jets as they weren’t supersonic.
Sean
TLDNR
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
The closest you’ve yet come to saying something that was actually funny…
and it still wasn’t.
I wouldn’t bother reading it anyway as he is wrong…….as is usual.
Fast air is a military term for combat aircraft that these days are always jets be they bomber or fighters or most often multi role. This is to distinguish them from slower fixed winged support aircraft (transports, EW, MPA, etc) and helicopters.
Very few combat aircraft actually go supersonic. And those that do don’t often do it for very long. Yes there is ‘super cruise’ but it still eats fuel.
There is no category for aircraft that aren’t supersonic or slow.
Harrier was Supersonic in a dive. Hunter was too…. funny how some people define the word “fast”…. the Buc’s were known as fast, especially impressive ten feet off the waves. “200mph on a race track is fast, 700mph a few feet off the ground is insanely fast.
People deride the F35b as “Slow”…. I guess some folk can’t decide.
In that case you’re saying Navy Lookout is wrong, because under your definition Harriers would count as ‘fast jets’. But NL is discounting them as it is referring to the gap between the Phantoms (supersonic) and F35 (supersonic).
Maybe you should stick to your zoophiliac activities.
Fantastic news about the number of F35b embarked!
HMS Hermes embarked 12 Sea Harriers and 10 Harriers for its last exercise in 1983.
That must have been more than a touch crowded.
Just to clarify that a “FREMM-class frigate” is not correct. FREMM is the name of the Italian-French programme. In the Italian Navy this evolved into the Bergamini-class frigates (with three versions), while in the Marine Nationale there are the Aquitaine-class frigates (with two or three versions).
Why have they not installed the 30mm guns?
They are pretty inaccurate. Take a look at the many videos showing the poor hit rate against Killer Tomatoes. Many people on here seem to think they are one shot kill weapons that are super accurate. They are not.
Very shortsighted not to fit them
Rmj
You need to read the debate here on NL afew weeks back………about the suggestion to fit the brand new Bofers 40mm (instead of the old 30mm)
That was suggested because:
Peter (Irate Taxapayer)
Are the 40mm one shot one kill then?
Phalanx can serve the same role
Until it shoots it’s load !!!
Every magazine runs out and will need reloading. USN ditching multiple weapons systems from the Ford Class and reverting to streamlined options
You think I don’t know that ?
Phalanx is too short range and quantity matters even more.
If the carrier is getting in a flak screen fight then we’ve got problems
‘leakers’ can always happen. USN has found that too as they can have malfunctions with their ‘automated’ systems too
Not for slower drones and of course crossing targets.
“Effective” range is then more than for a fast sea skimmer where destruction has to be guaranteed inside the last km or so.
So 20mm CIWS and heavy machine guns?
The Killer Tomatoes were cheating by running around too fast and being multi-compartment, they should have used Big Bananas
Because the RN decided they posed a greater danger to the surrounding escorts – mentioned in another NL article some time ago.
Agreed they proved dangerous to the Escorts as a 30mm shell could sink a modern thin skinned escort
I think when it came to AAW they were concerned at the 30mm peppering the radars and bridges of the frigates.
Shouldnt be that close!. A missile wasnt going to come over the mast of another ship and dive in like they do now.
Too many Falkland’s actions happened with other ships in the wrong place- Coventry!
What crap shooting by RN.
Then the drones should definitely aim at the radars and the Bridge, good hint
Ridiculous.
RN carriers in WW2 were porcupines.
WW2 aiming was by humans and was accurate. now it’s all done by AI and radar, and random shooting
Hahah..
PS:In late WW2 was already done by radar direction.
Based on how the RN escorts its Carriers, as we tend to escort close in. 30mm guns were not that accurate and the concern was 1 erratic shell could and would if it hit a modern thin skinned escort take out and entire command centre or even sink a escort. so they hard points were wired on the QE class. but its expected something will replace them when proven
Not required to be ‘close in’ anymore, thats Seacat era.
Camm can provide all the protection from 10km away as can T45s
Seacat lol how many did we see drop over the side as it left the launcher
Evidence please.
Even this era USN will fire TWO SM-2 or SM-6 to make sure
The excuses we get here… really you believe it?
think it was based on a mass drone or swarm attack, that in face of a attack, Captains lose track of there surroundings and focus on there own ship. and a targeting tracked auto gun, could and would shoot at a target, what goes up will come down. who really knows
If there’s a swarm attack on the carrier, the alternative to carriers firing outward would be for the escorts to fire at the drones inward, probably using those same 30mms. So why doesn’t the same argument apply if the escorts are firing inward? Why might they not hit the carrier? If the drones are closing on the carrier, it’s far more likely that the escorts would hit the carrier than the carriers firing outward would hit an escort. Isn’t it?
Because the carrier is protected by Force Shield
And the escorts are just made of Papier-mâché, one hit by 30mm and they end up like HMS Hood.
Automated combat systems can track 100 or more targets at once and rank them in order of highest threat ( time!) to lowest. This is done for 200km plus out- as the destroyer is AAW command node.
Many carriers for USN been through Red sea Straits recently plus French and Italian ones too.
Evidence please. What is on the menu in Zetland?
Publicity by combat system developers and radar makers says so.
Buddha says it is not true
He meant Bog roll.
Can i point out,the Canadiians tested various guns up to 76mm and failed to sink an old stript down Frigate, not sure if they used 5 inch as well. Been told it’s on YOUTUBE!
Of course not . Jutland would have told you that unless you blow up the magazine first its very very difficult for above water line hits to ‘let the water in’
18 jets, sometimes 24 before they have to go back to the UK…what a joke of joke of an IOC by the MoD, and then of course the UK has the disgrace of only having 2 escorts and one Hunter-Killer for a global deployment.
.
.
Here’s an idea, dissolve the MoD completely, spread its 4th arm of the military budget into the 3 services (I won’t say evenly, because that’s not what is required, PC be damned).
.
.
Pity also the early design decisions for the CVF dropped the point/local area defence capabilities, as it was thought erroneously escorts would be available and this was unnecessary duplication! 🙃
Ex-Service
As you well know, the UK’s has long conducted a sustained policy of procuring vital equipment for our armed forces (planes, ships, tanks and weapons etc) = late, overbudget and of poor quality etc etc etc
I agree with you = MOD is P*** Poor
However ….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I think he means all UK government apparatus concerned with the administration of defence.
I think there is a lot of merit to the argument that a lot of “expertise” was lost when the three previous ministries were merged. We went from three tiny ministries that supported their respective services to one large ministry that supported the administration of itself. An early victim of the Cult of Management. Merging, centralisation, and London-isation hasn’t been good for the country. Government is not business.
Each service had its own junior minister at one time, perhaps we need to go back to those days or have I missed something!
Before the MoD there was the Admiralty, the War Office, and Air Ministry.
The Admiralty had been running the naval service since 1707 and doing a rather good job of it.
Yes each service was directly responsible to parliament and overseen by a cabinet minister…
Notice,no particular involvement by politicians! I do wonder how the current defence review will go ? The involvement of people like the PM,who have no obvious experience of defence fills me with great confidence (NOT!)
Each service pre MOD days had its own cabinet minister ! . Churchill was such a person as 1st Sea lord a cabinet rank despite the name
The last PM with service experience was labours Callahan ( Royal Navy, ended the war as a Lt on an escort carrier in pacific)
Cant even be sure when the last PM was who was Defence Secretary
Is it only the MoD, your target?
May be the shipyards could be for something in delays to build T26 and T31?
Need to stop posting emotive nonsense and try posting something intelligent based on actual facts. If one were to look around the world at our peers in the defence procurement world the U.K. fares substantially better than the US, procurement to waste is probably less than 50/50 if you read their audit reports or the Congressional Reports. Next in the G7 would be Germany, who are probably in 70/30 bracket of waste/success. Can’t do shipbuilding on their own anymore and were unable to field functioning military support vessels in a recent exercise. Obviously Canada, Italy and Spain are not in our league and have had their problems, if you read their military blogs. Which leaves us with our closest peer France. If you have tried reading/translating OPEX360 or other French military blogs you would know that they have had their problems, both with “frankensub” and the travails of their only aircraft carrier. To having to ask for help with their African heavy lift. Outside Isreal, who are in a perpetual state of war, the only nations that tend to get defence pretty much right almost all of the time are uniformly “small”. Apart from in the movies or video games. So we are only 1 of 2 nations able to field a couple of squadrons of 5th gen aircraft. Terrible state of affairs!
OkamsRazor,
You should try to read Opex360 and NavalNews, because your information might be a bit obsolete.
But you’re right, nobody’s perfect, and France is far from perfect!
Anyway it’s happy the RN can deploy two River class in Pacific, where stands permanantly 2 “Floreal” costguard frigates (plus 2 in Indian Ocean) and 6 patrol ships with some auxilliaries, and some naval patrol aircrafts.
Not sure what your point is. My point was that if you compiled a league table of major defence programs over the last 25 years the MOD would be near the top and the US/Germany competing for the bottom. Isreal would be at the top. Whilst no major country has a particularly shining record. However, many commentators have no experience of major projects and believe they are easy and there is some Alice In Wonderland country that does major projects on budget and on time every time.
“My point was that if you compiled a league table of major defence programs over the last 25 years the MOD would be near the top ”
Not even close.
Of the countries that develop weapons UK is probably the worse in those last 25 yrs.
US have more failed programs but they have many more.
FRES, Nimrod, both, frigate and carrier iatus, Type 26 taking 11 years to be build, Astutes, T45 propulsion issues. I can continue.
The only branch that can somewhat escape bad rep is the RAF.
France, Italy or Germany have had but not at this level. They are not perfect obviously.
Again emotive nonsense. You live in the UK defence blogosphere so you believe the UK is the worst. If you were to venture outside the UK blogosphere to the US defence blogosphere you would know what a s@Владимир Темников@tsh?w it is and the staggering amount of waste. The US waste is more than the UK budget. Try reading the Congressional Research Reports. You obviously haven’t done any research into Germany’s recent defence programs, the state of German military is a complete joke. Try speaking to a German or reading their news reports.
Whilst I know it’s fashionable to get all hysterical about UK defence spending and a couple of failed programs like Nimrod, but the truth is abscent political meddling and US contractors (T-45) our military programs have been relatively successful.
The level of delusion.
I would say with France army wise procurement has been probably the most effective in the world, the army knows exactly what it wants its balanced very well mass vs capability vs deployability vs industrial capacity.
Navy wise it suffers exactly as the RN does funding is sucked away by the need to keep strategic platforms and capabilities.. carrier, SSN, SSBN. It’s frigate program was essentially saved by buddying up with the Italians who are essentially the most cost effective warship builders and designers in the western world.
air force wise..not great procurement..some very big holes to be honest.. really impacted the limits of French industry ( which is very good for a mid size nation.. but still a mid size nation).
You seem to have a Panglossian view of French defence spending which bears little resemblance to reality. French defence spending is almost as political as the US and defined by their defence contractors. If not for international collaboration it would be very much worse. They appear efficient because most in the UK defence blogosphere don’t bother to read or follow their major programmes, ditto for Italy and Spain. They have all had problems with major programmes and issues of waste and failures.
OkamsRazor
When it comes to developing and/or buying defence equipment
it is (was?) usually the European non-aligned nations which are the best of the lot
In Europe, the military kit coming out of Sweden (especally) Finland and Switzerland is often of a far better design and quality than the kit generated by the larger nations (i.e. those that have all been in NATO a very long time)
That tends to be because
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
I look at results and their procurement of armoured fighting vehicles has been a paragon of success.. I clearly pointed out were it did not work so well.. airforce being the big hole.. as for Italy.. its a paragon in regards to surface combatants.. no western nation has produced surface combatants to the same value point. But it’s not been successful in armoured vehicle procurement. The UK is a mixed bag.. but it AFV procurement has been an utter joke.. it’s frigate procurement was the same for a very long time and the RN is suffering that.
“2 “Floreal” costguard frigates (plus 2 in Indian Ocean) and 6 patrol ships with some auxilliaries, and some naval patrol aircrafts.”
France has major territories ( colonies!) in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Britain doesnt and thats why the RN doesn’t have its defence force based there
Surely you knew this .
Duker,
Of course, that was my point. France is always present in Pacific.
But in fact, it’s useful to the crew’s management: young officers dream at their paradise affectation (not sure of the word), in Pacific or Caribbean, as does the whole crew of these “coastguard” ships, before going to somewhere else. It’s easier to recruit, than promise to replay the “Murmansk convoy escort adventure”.
So it’s essential for the RN to send ships in Pacific, River patrol ships or CSG 25, to help keeping a good moral, besides all other considerations.
They have oversea territoritories there. UK has the minute Picairn islands.
Morale ?
Sailors ( with more time off)are like all people under 70, can fly to Bali or Phuket or Maldives themselves with friends and family. Have 1-2 weeks of their own time. Not just 12 hours ashore
Just a reminder, RN isnt going to Murmansk any more and sponsored adventure training go to far more challenging locales than ‘somewhere warm’
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/navyfit/adventurous-training.html
“As serving members of the Royal Navy, our people are entitled to a minimum of five days adventurous training every year, with those five days considered part of the working diary.
We badly need more F35Bs for the FAA,Simply not enough.Remove F35Bs from RAF service and transfer ALL to FAA and purchase another 50 to give our carriers enough: there wasted in RAF hands their bases aren’t anywhere near close enough to any potential enemy! Give them more typhoons or tempests if they need them for local defense !
ok Sherlock…. easy who going to fly them, and where you going to plug them In. as no naval airbase yet upgraded to support F35bs
I think it would be obvious to transfer any relevant personal over to FAA as its going to take some time for new aircraft to join FAA,there are several mothballed airbase in the west country & west Wales which can be brought up to grade in that time and train new aircraft personal.
“Transfer personnel over”. I think I may have spotted the flaw in your plan. There’s this little thing called a retention crisis…
On this point I’m in total agreement ! Retention & overall Manpower & Womenpower is very,very poor,we don’t have enough, and can’t retain what we have, in general, (army,,airforce) NAVY need an uplift of 25% but the powers that be think EQUIPMENT & SHIPS run by themselves and look good in Port! Pointless having ships–
aircraft and no one to run them!
The MOD spent £500million upgrading Marham ready for the F35.
How much do you think it’d cost to get one of these “mothballed airbase in the west country & west Wales” up to grade?…
How near is Marham to a potential enemy! In F35B range?
Doesnt have to move the ‘master air base’ at all. Just continue the joint system but the RN has more say. Even give it a stone frigate name !
Exactly.
Be very careful what you wish for. As Peter notes, the majority of the equipment buying decisions are taken by DE&S in Abbeywood. However, contrary to popular myth, that site is not staffed by an entire legion of civil service Morlocks all doing their level best to screw up programmes. There is a very significant service contingent across the piece, many of whom are in the requirement definition role. Others are in “safety” roles. See if you can guess whether they contribute to programme cost escalation, either through gold-plating requirements, specifying unobtanium, failing to make timely decisions either through lack of confidence or fear of consequence.
Plus, not a one of them has any commercial or programme management experience. Which means all goes swimmingly right up until the point the project hits the real world, things go wrong and solutions have to be found. Just saying “crack on” in a proficient military manner is unlikely to end well…….
I don’t think he knows DE&S exists. He probably means all the civil service support and control of the forces as the MoD. Pedantry doesn’t make you clever.
Worked in Army procurement and the issue is previously we had all these Great British engineering companies that supported War production and fighting over contracts. now nothing BAEs “backstabbers” RR “more interested in commercial” Ajax “take tank and make it fly” Boxer “make it to big to be fit in a Chinook” CH3 to heavy for C17 ??.
the list is long and endless and is generated by people who should know better,
but it was a camp commander, who wanted 4 new 4X4 Range patrol vehicles
had few requirements seat 5 with space for kit 4×4 drive.
we came back with Ford Ranger full spec with upgrade from dealer each coming in @Владимир Темников £12k per unit for 4
he rejected and stated he wanted Land Rover or Range Rover options and model unit cost £48k per unit.
we went pack and said we can secure 4 for the price of one, and why would the range patrol require such levels.
12 months passed of these things kicked around. with no movement.
New CO comes in and goes through the outstanding requestions, pulls this one and calls the team in trying to work out why we were engaging on such a high level spec for a Range item..
Turns out old C/O wanted one to tow his boat to the coast and didn’t want to pull up in Ford Ranger.
Procurement is a legal process to stop idiots from spending someone else’s money badly
Yet its always there fault never the people who place the order .
Yet its always there fault never the people who place the order .
Johan
Forget the Range Rover and Ford Ranger
Our enemies have all known for years it is the best….
https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-officials-isis-toyota-trucks/story?
id=34266539
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Our Politicians/MOD have for sometime run a procurement of cheap and cheerful never expecting or hopeing that our armed force’s would have to fight a real war! Times have changed but we’re now playing catchup!
MOD AEW Latest News.
There various schemes out in the current development, Long flying drones is one option but there Radar suite is not designed to search large spaces is more pin point. post Crowsnest which was always a stop gap, due to end of service life of Merlin 2030s. Single F35 has a better radar than a E3 Sentry, modern systems are far in advanced of a traditional AEW platform, thats why its unsure if there is a need or desire in existing systems to replace.
The F35’s radar has sharper imaging and has better tracking. But the E3’s radar has far better range and 360 degree coverage,
A small radar set is never going to have the coverage of a larger one. Compare it with E7 which can track thousands of targets out to 600 km.
A tactical radar isn’t for surveillance; you are comparing apples and oranges.
Depends what you want from the radar.
If you want to be able to fire a missile at another fighter without exposing yourself, F35 is the thing.
But as a means of detecting missiles, jets and drones across hundreds of miles of ocean? Extremely inefficient.
If you want to be able to fire a missile at another fighter without exposing yourself, F35 is the thing.
Launching the missile and passing it on to an in theatre ASaC bird is the thing. F35 has a range up to 200km something like an E7 over 500km for a fighter sized target.
F35 has a radar range up to 200km……..
Cheaper to fly and maintain, I would have thought?
LINK
Yes. My point was more it is a waste of stealth if you have to use it!
Point taken!
As I keep saying QE should have been built around E2x. The thing that carried the ordnance should have been the secondary. We are not getting a first rate STOL ASaC / AEW package because the USMC don’t need one. Bravo is a win for us because it is a fifth gen plane. But it is more plane than the USMC actually needs to fly from LHx; they have because of the common lost cost platform driver to the whole project. Yes Rafale-M isn’t stealth. But the French have E2. Rafale can fire stand off ordnance be it AAM or AShM and fire it off and scuttle off back to mother before the target has any inkling they are there. Because we lack a decent AEW / ASaC platform our stealthy planes have to fly into ranges where increasingly sophisticated sensors are mitigating stealth. Classic UK planning again.
I would have to agree with you. However, the F35 does give you the option of using it as a spotter. Then communicating with other F35s to fire off their weapons at a designated target/targets. Whilst the spotter remains “cloaked”, something the Rafale can’t do.
I’d say that the Mojave is a competent and flexible option and a useful tool to have onboard the carriers. The twin gun pods and Hellfire missiles alone suggest this is an option for serious consideration.
LINK
GA have been looking at a full fat AEW solution;
https://euro-sd.com/2023/11/articles/34948/the-expanding-market-for-aewc-solutions/
See end of article, but unable to find more. Demo @Farnborough2023 apparently.
Cheers, very useful! SPEAR could replace Hellfire at some point.
“The MQ-9B SkyGuardian/SeaGuardian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a potential candidate to conduct persistent wide-area surveillance/airborne early warning (AEW) from land and aircraft carriers, in the latter thanks to proof-of-concept demonstrations to be conducted starting from this autumn in the US.
General Atomics has conducted concept development and engineering studies to see if the MQ-9B could conduct different demanding operations including AEW missions supported by a radar manufacturer.
During the Combined Naval Event 2023 conference at Farnborough in the UK, General Atomics showed an MQ-9B-based AEW&C solution with IFF and BMC2 capabilities.
This configuration of the MQ-9B platform was equipped with a dual-pod radar solution, with each underwing pod accommodating a radar antenna. The platform also featured a central conformal pod hosting the processing and cooling capabilities.”
Leonardo’s Britecloud might also be an option if a dispenser could be designed for it, similar to the gun pod.
Makes sense for them to offer a product. Every navy operating the F35B, and even possibly the USMC for its assault ships, would be a potential buyer. It’s not just a RN need.
That airframe (and potentially its weapons loadout) is for operations from land. Putting that anywhere near the EM environment on a warship is asking for someone to have a very bad day. I’d imagine its ability to withstand a saltwater corrosive environment is similarly suspect. Materials compatibility is also a thing.
How would your concerns differ from the EA-18G, as an example? They seem to be a very flexible option.
“General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI) is developing and showcasing unmanned Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) systems for aircraft carriers, with a focus on platforms like the MQ-9B SeaGuardian and the Mojave STOL.
They are exploring concepts for using unmanned systems to provide persistent surveillance and early warning capabilities for carrier strike groups, potentially replacing or augmenting traditional manned AEW&C aircraft.”
“The Mojave aircraft has a take-off distance of 400ft (122m) for ISR missions and 1,000ft (304m) for attack missions. It provides a maximum endurance of more than 25 hours. The unmanned system has a flying range of 2,500nm (4,630km) in a ferry configuration.”
Very simply. The EA18 has been designed from the ground up to operate aboard a ship. Which means that its materials will all be selected to resist saltwater corrosion etc. More importantly, all its onboard electronic systems will have been designed and specified to function in a high-power naval EM environment.
Mojave is the polar opposite.
Sadly, all aircraft onboard a carrier, including the aircraft carrier itself, suffer from corrosion. Built from the ground up or not.
LINK
“Even in the mid-2010s, the trend could be linked to materials-deterioration issues [18], and there were at least two reasons for this. First, what else could be wrong with new planes constantly exposed to the corrosive marine environment?
Second, the lack of proper and science-based attention to structural materials and corrosion control within the DoD and its military branches has been known [12,13].
Unsurprisingly, it was soon found that F/A-18E/Fs had the highest total corrosion cost among the DoN’s aviation assets for FY2017 [55]; from 2017-2020, the cost of corrosion only for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft was almost $1.5 billion.
As mentioned, two recent studies completed by CBO in 2022 and 2023 [74,75] concluded that the availability rates of the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornets declined markedly between 2005/2006 and 2020 (Figures 15b and 16).
A similar trend in declining MC rates was observed between 2012 and 2018 for these jets (Figure 8) and also for the EA-18G Growler [54], a variant of the F/A-18F equipped with a sophisticated electronic warfare suite”
If Mojave is the polar opposite, as you say, why are we considering it for ISR operations onboard the QE-class carriers?
Propelling down the flight deck, the drone smoothly lifts into the air at around the 600 foot mark — for context, the Prince of Wales’ flight deck runs some 901-foot-long.
In its lightest configuration with a more limited payload package focused on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, the drone is able to get airborne in as little as 300 to 400 feet. Additional weight added from extra fuel, sensors, or missiles increases said distance.
I made a very simple post yesterday which seems to have disappeared. The difference between the EA18G and the Mojave is simple. One has been designed from the ground up to operate aboard naval ships, which means its materials and EM compatibility have been specified from the off to resist the effects you find aboard ship.
The other hasn’t.
It shouldn’t be a problem.
LINK
“Mojave is being used to demonstrate uncrewed STOL capabilities for the upcoming MQ-9B STOL, a wing-kit that allows the MQ-9B, which has a greater payload and endurance than the Mojave, to operate from austere runways and aircraft carriers.
Utilising the most advanced multi-domain surveillance and podded technologies available, MQ-9B STOL provides a short-field advantage without sacrificing the platform’s ability to conduct complex, long-endurance operations.
For example, MQ-9B STOL will enable organic anti-submarine warfare and fleet defense missions without needing to return to a conventional land-based airfield for refueling and maintenance.
Mission Sets:
Maritime domain awarenessAnti-surface warfareAnti-submarine warfareAirborne mine countermeasuresHumanitarian assistance/disaster reliefSearch and rescueLaw enforcementBorder enforcementAirborne early warningElectronic warfareLong-range strategic ISROver-the-horizon targetingAnd more
That’s an advert by the OEM. If you think the blether about wing kits addresses any of the actual issues, I have a bridge you may be interested in ….
Point being, it’s being designed to take off from aircraft carriers, so I’m sure someone has pointed out the problems associated with saltwater to them if they hadn’t realised that themselves.
“Yes, rust can develop on an EA-18G Growler’s metallic parts due to exposure to saltwater.
The EA-18G, like any aircraft, is susceptible to corrosion, and salt water accelerates the rusting process, particularly on less corrosion-resistant materials.”
Answer is:
Removing rust from aircraft, especially on board an aircraft carrier, requires a methodical approach due to the sensitive nature of the materials and the environment. Here’s a breakdown of the process:
1. Identification and Assessment:
2. Preparation:
3. Removal Methods:
4. Post-Removal:
Important Considerations for Aircraft:
By following these steps, rust can be effectively removed from aircraft, minimizing corrosion and ensuring the long-term integrity of the aircraft.
It’s not “being designed to take off from a carrier”. It has been designed to operate from land and is now being modified to try and get it off a ship. Two very different things
The GA folks haven’t covered themselves in glory in the technical discussions this far. There is an awful lot they’re unaware of.
You may be interested to know that “rust” is only one of the material issues you find at sea. If you think the F18 family is so bad, just imagine how much worse an airframe where materials haven’t been considered will be….
I also note you’re still avoiding the EM issues as well.
“to try and get it off a ship”
Enjoy the enclosed article and videos
LINK
LINK
“I also note you’re still avoiding the EM issues as well.”
“The Mojave drone, designed by General Atomics, is not specifically known for its impact on electromagnetic fields or its use in electronic warfare in a way that directly affects surrounding electromagnetic environments. However, its capabilities in electronic warfare and other roles do involve the use and generation of electromagnetic signals and the potential for disruption of enemy systems.”
One post awaiting for approval. I’m thinking EA-18G, Does this aircraft cause any issues?
“The Mojave drone, designed by General Atomics, is not specifically known for its impact on electromagnetic fields or its use in electronic warfare in a way that directly affects surrounding electromagnetic environments.
However, its capabilities in electronic warfare and other roles do involve the use and generation of electromagnetic signals and the potential for disruption of enemy systems.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Electronic Warfare Capabilities:The Mojave can be equipped for electronic warfare roles, including jamming and disrupting enemy radio and radar systems. This would involve the drone generating and using its own electromagnetic signals to interfere with the signals of the enemy. Signal Intelligence (SIGINT):The drone can also be used for SIGINT, which involves collecting and analysing electromagnetic signals, including radio transmissions, radar signals, and other forms of communication. This would involve detecting and recording electromagnetic signals from various sources. Other Electromagnetic Sensors:The Mojave can be equipped with various sensors that rely on electromagnetic radiation, such as EO/IR sensors (electro-optical/infrared) and radar systems (SAR/GMTI). Overall Impact:While the Mojave’s use of electromagnetic signals and its role in electronic warfare could create an electromagnetic field in its immediate vicinity, the specific impact on surrounding areas would depend on the type of electromagnetic signals being used and the intensity of the signals. In essence, the Mojave drone’s activities, particularly in electronic warfare and SIGINT, involve the generation and use of electromagnetic signals, which could influence the electromagnetic environment in its immediate vicinity. However, it’s not designed specifically to cause widespread or significant electromagnetic interference or disruption beyond its intended operational objectives.”
“The QE-class carriers are protected from EW interference through a layered approach, including electronic warfare systems and physical protection measures.
The ships are equipped with advanced electronic warfare systems, and have hard-kill defenses like Phalanx guns to counter immediate threats. Additionally, measures like physically separated networks protect critical systems from potential degradation.
The carriers are also designed to be adaptable, allowing for future upgrades and the integration of new technologies, including those related to EW protection.”
LINK
It should be fine and future-proof.
“The QE-class carriers are protected from EW interference through a layered approach, including electronic warfare systems and physical protection measures.
The ships are equipped with advanced electronic warfare systems, and have hard-kill defenses like Phalanx guns to counter immediate threats. Additionally, measures like physically separated networks protect critical systems from potential degradation.
The carriers are also designed to be adaptable, allowing for future upgrades and the integration of new technologies, including those related to EW protection.”
Your last few posts demonstrate perfectly that you don’t understand the issues. It’s nothing to do with EW.
Your comment.
“Very simply. The EA18 has been designed from the ground up to operate aboard a ship. Which means that its materials will all be selected to resist saltwater corrosion etc.
More importantly, all its onboard electronic systems will have been designed and specified to function in a high-power naval EM environment.
Mojave is the polar opposite.”
“The General Atomics Aeronautical Systems’ Mojave aircraft is described as having “short takeoff and landing (STOL)” capabilities, making it suitable for operating in remote, non-permissive environments.
This includes environments where traditional aircraft might have difficulty, potentially including areas with electromagnetic interference or challenges.
“EM environment” context:
The phrase “EM environment” likely refers to an electromagnetic environment, which involves the presence of electromagnetic radiation or fields. The Mojave aircraft, with its STOL capabilities and modular design, is more likely to be designed to function in or withstand such an environment.
The same thing applies to the MQ-9B.
No. Really.
You appear to be trying to use AI to answer questions you don’t understand.
Perhaps you could try to explain why STOL and/or modular design is remotely relevant to EM environment.
“You appear to be trying to use AI to answer questions you don’t understand.”
No, just factual answers to the concerns you have raised.
Facts? FFS.
Go on then, explain why STOL and modular design obviate EM issues? You might start by explaining what you think those EM issues are.
Do tell.
So you don’t even understand the premise of a question then?
Stop panicking and move on; it’s all going to be fine.
“GA has developed the SeaGuardian derivative of the MQ-9B with a range of 6,000nm, able to stay on station for up to 25 hours, it has nine hard-points for a sensor or weapon payload of up to 2,100 kg.
SeaGuardian can be equipped with a variety of maritime radar and EO sensors and even conduct ASW when equipped with a sonobuoy dispenser.
Whether the UK will purchase SeaGuardian for this requirement is unclear for now but with Protector already in service, it would make sense as there would be commonality of logistic support and training.
Although a US-made product, the Protector deal includes the involvement of British industry. For example, Isle of Wight-based GKN Aerospace now manufactures the V-tails for all MQ-9B variants.”
LINK
No one is panicking. Someone is merely pointing out that regurgitating manufacturers blurb does not a capability make.
For very real and practical reasons that will become apparent in time.
Now – have you figured out the simple premise of answering a question yet?
N-a-B
If, once upon a time, IF I had been the dictator in charge of MOD aviation procurement ……..
then one of my first actions many years ago would have been to mandate that ALL UK military rotary-wing flying machines must all be able to operate interoperably from any one of:
and so all with the same basic pilot trainng, and all with the same ground-crews training and the same groundcrew support vehicles etc etc etc
—————-
Therefore, as you have quite-rightly just pointed out, it is now “very worrying” that the current situation with developing our new drones is rapidly going the very same way..= no joined up thinking
Thus I strongly suspect that the technical incompaibilities of different UK drones (UAV’s) being operated by our three armed services will soon become a very big operational challenge
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I said similar about the Puma replacement. Whatever they choose has to be a naval cab. It makes little sense for it not to be so………..
It won’t though. They will go for the cheaper option. And then send it to sea for exercises and spend a fortune dealing with corrosion which eventually mean a few being written off. Further reducing what will already be a reduced number of airframes over Puma.
Was told that Bearings on harriers were rusting due wrong material being used during the Falkland war!
NIg e
Back in 1982, it was often not appreciated that the RAF ground attack and RN sea fighter versions of the Harrier jump jet were “very different aircraft”.
The two actually had surprisingly little in common..
…and also the USMC and, then also, the later UK “post falklands” versions of the harrier were all “very different again”
——————–
so, when a naval biggles got into a crabbs harrier, and visa versa: Biggles had to have the red and white L plates fitted
= until after Biggles had “got the hang of” the very different controls, …..including the rather important “fire guns now” buttons
so, during the Falklands War, this lack of interoperability between the two aircraft fleets caused “a few issues”
…..and it even allowed some Argies – including those who were bang to rights and already smack in the middle of the harrier’s gunsights
………. to live to tell the tale
……..all because the gun buttons were in very different places….
WIZ
Given the very extensive use of non-corrosive composite materials used throughout most modern aviation fuselages – I franky think there is no excuse whatsoever for the UK’s Puma replacement (whatever that might be) not to have an airframe which is “fully navalised”
—————-
Furthermore, I agree with your line of thinking
In a sane world, for the now ongoing RAF Puma replacement programme, the UK armed forces would simply be buying many more Merlins, all made down in deepest darkest Somerset.
All new Merlins would be equipped with the latest fuselage, better (modern / fuel efficent) engines, sensors and avionics etc
The Puma replacements would thus be instantly – “navalised”
Therefore, overall, especially when taking the long term costs of crew training, maintainace support, spares etc etc
Note 1;
Except for Donald Trump and JD Vance, neither of whom has never been either a bean counter nor a lawyer (althought it has to be said that “The Donald” has employed plenty of lawyers over the years…..)
“Back in 1982, it was often not appreciated that the RAF ground attack and RN sea fighter versions of the Harrier jump jet were “very different aircraft..
The two actually had surprisingly little in common..”
Apart from the Shar radar ( plus its missiles) , the GR3 version of the RAF Harrier used in Falklands was exactly the same as FRS1.
You are thinking of the later AV-8B based GR5/7 and later versions.
JD Vance graduated from Harvard Law schhol and did practice for a time as corp lawyer before going to Silicon valley and be venture capitalist- lawyer
GR3 version of the RAF Harrier used in Falklands was exactly the same as FRS1.
No.
Apart from its radar and weapons fit. ‘Almost’ exactly the same airframe past the cockpit
Today it is an issue many don’t consider.
“The AW149 has also been ordered by the Egyptian Navy for a range of missions including troop transport; re-supply/external load lift; medical and casualty evacuation; search-and-rescue (SAR) and combat search-and-rescue (CSAR)”
https://verticalmag.com/news/leonardo-makes-case-for-aw149-as-raf-puma-replacement/
Its clearly not a mritime helicopter but some naval use might be fine
Time to end the 107 year old experiment and get aircraft control back where it belongs……..? Tongue firmly in cheek.
N-a-B
The fact is that both the UK navy and army both started experimenting with the new fangled flying machines well before 1918
So – I think it was the fault of that french bloke – Louis Bleriot
….because had UK air defences been up to the job on the 25th July 1909…… … and thus had Mr Louis B been shot down whilst he was approaching our then sacred White Cliffs of Dover
Then both the British Army and the Royal Navy would have said:
“we want nothing whatsover to do with these dnagerous new-fangled flying machnes”
and not forgetting that, even as we speak, our PM Mr Keir Starmer is still promising to strengthen the UK’s overwhelmed Cross Channel Defences (ie once again pledging to “stop the boats”)
“1066 and all that”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
Please note that, following that rare outbreak of common sense in the UK legal profession last week, I am now using the pronoun “Mr”.
..all said with my tongue very firmly in my cheek
…and I am now waiting for the response from “little froggy”
Consider that a generation before that the Royal Navy of the British Empire, the planet’s super power, was concerned that switching to oil from coal would leave them vulnerable globally. Then with a generation or two the idea that the Empire which had started to show signs of decline could be policed by land based air. Even in my life time the RAF was putting out recruitment films showing life out at East in bases at Gan and Singapore with airfields full of big technically advance aircraft. This was when we had surface combatants from Aden to Singapore to Hong Kong. And now the UK thinks sending a few fighters and a few ships that far a major achievement. If the establishment of most of the 20th century back then didn’t see the utility in an island nation only buying maritime aircraft I don’t see how we could expect an even less competent Eurocentric government in the 21st century to think that deeply or far ahead.
Also consider the number of aircraft the UK had in RAFG was roughly the same as what was needed to equip a carrier group. Lastly consider a different future where the UK purchased the CVA-01 carriers. And today our QRA fighters are the same ones that fly from our carriers and squadrons rotate through both roles. We could do things. Our governments choose not to do them.
Dear Peter
I agree with your very accurate point of view.
If the Plantagenêt would have won the Hundred Years War, Louis Blériot would have been Brit (as myself), and nobody would have understood why he was crossing the (English) Channel coming from France to England, and not in the over way.
So much angst, so little time! Off topic, but an interesting perspective from a practioner;
Journalistic understanding of the IPA (Infrastructure and Project Authority) RAG statuses and process is near zero I’m afraid.
All UK Government programmes that are over £50m, or of a novel or contentious nature, are reported to the IPA in the GMPP (Government Major Projects Portfolio) with annual returns listed for publication. There are also quarterly returns and an annual ‘Transparency Return’ (don’t expect to get too much from that though…, the GAO it ain’t). The Programmes status is listed clearly with a RAG status (Red, Amber and Green). It’s a bit more complex than that as there are interim stages like Red-Amber, Amber-Green as well…
The RAG status comes from either an internal assessment i.e. the programme or project grades itself, or from an independent assessment that is commissioned by the programme via the IPA. That assessment is done at defined stages of the programme, ranging from programme start to programme closure. They’re called ‘Gateways’. You need to clear multiple ‘Gateway’s in order to proceed with the programme. For long term programmes where there could be large gaps between stages you can also commission, or be asked to commission, interim reviews. Dependent on how these are commissioned they can be internal to the programme only (with a copy submitted to IPA for records) or submitted to the IPA formally. Typically these are done at the request of the Senior Responsible Owner, particularly if they’ve just taken over from another SRO).
There are also other assurance mechanisms that can run alongside the IPA, the Major Projects Group for example chaired by the CEO of the Civil Service with external to Government experts called in. These tend to be for larger projects.
The big issue though is that journo’s (and politicians) just don’t understand the reality of the IPA process. Definitions of RAG status are available online and they go with that….but there is a lot of wriggle room and nuance…the reasons why a programme are scored RED are many and varied…and don’t necessarily mean that there are unsurmountable issues. But the published definition makes it sound like there are…
For example I worked in a programme from start to finish over a period of >5 years. At the start we were listed as RED….we remained in that status for 5 years, went to RED-AMBER for the final year…before going straight to GREEN on delivery. End result was we delivered early, under budget with savings of 65% over the previous solution (and our business case stated 35%)…and industry had said that it wasn’t possible…MPG told us it was the most successful Government programme they had ever seen….so why was it RED? Simple….we needed to keep political and organisational focus on it to ensure we had the resources to actually get the work done, if we’d scored at GREEN everyone would have taken their eye off the ball and it would have suffered. By emphasising issues, industry views etc we kept it at that (make no mistake it wasn’t plain sailing either). If you know you need the money, attention and resources to keep flowing scoring at GREEN doesn’t actually help your case sometimes…
And for MoD projects its even worse as the Transparency Returns, GMPP reports are not available for viewing and the data they release to the public is woefully short of detail, and no-one will talk in comparison to other government programmes, due to the secret nature of a lot of them….unfortunately though, it appears that the data that MoD releases, even to Parliament has become even thinner on the ground over the last few years…transparency, to a degree, is a good thing and MoD is increasingly secretive. The only reason for that is to avoid scrutiny.
OkamsRazor
A correction, indeed an apology, is now required from your good self…
…..obviously to be published here on Navy Lookout
—-
The Irate Taxpayer is not just any old parctitioner of the very obscure black art of big league project and programme management….
—-
Why?
Because, way back in 1994:
That is where the frequently used TLA “VfM” orginally comes from…
“The “Original Value for Money Initiative Report” likely refers to the Treasury Committee’s report on the Office for Value for Money (OVfM), which was established by HM Treasury to improve efficiency and effectiveness in public spending.
This report, and HM Treasury’s response, outline the OVfM’s purpose, initial focus areas, and how it will advise the Chancellor on Spending Review 2025.”
NIgel
Not correct
The office for vaule for money has only very recently beem set up
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
In which case, I apologise!!!
Nigel
👍
Your humble apologises are, of course, humbly accepted
Peter (irate Taxpayer)
Would this be “Frontline first: The Defence Cost Study”?
‘Cos I can’t find no Peter there…
Decent article as ever, cheers. One small pickup. Capt McGannity is the Commander Combined Air Group (known as ‘CAG’) responsible for the taskgroup wide air capability. ‘Wings’ is PWLS’ own Cdr Air responsible for facilitating the aviation capability on board the carrier.
Thanks for that interesting distinction.
LOL, should we invest in 138 of these instead!
“Create a “fifth-generation plus” version of the F-35 that can offer 80 percent of the capability of the upcoming F-47 at “half the price.”
LINK
“The cost of the F-35 Lightning II program is projected to exceed $2 trillion, with sustainment costs increasing by 44% from $1.1 trillion in 2018 to $1.58 trillion in 2023. This surge in costs is attributed to factors like extending the F-35’s operational life, reliability issues, and increased reliance on contractors. Despite these rising costs, the F-35 program is facing cuts in flight hours, leading to concerns about its overall value and effectiveness.”
For a while I have wondered why they never developed a twin engine two seat variant alongside for something truly modular that covered all bases.
Something along the lines of the F-22 Raptor.
Hypothetical Twin-Engine Variant:
“Some discussions and analyses have explored the concept of a twin-engine F-35.
A hypothetical twin-engine variant could feature two Pratt & Whitney F135 engines, potentially doubling the power output of the single-engine version.
This would lead to increased thrust, potentially around 56,000 lbs of military thrust and 86,000 lbs with afterburner.
The design would be somewhat similar to the Chengdu J-20, another stealth fighter with twin engines.”
That’s it yes. They had to make a bigger body for the Bravo’s lift fan anyway. An extra engine in the design when doing all the modelling wouldn’t have made much extra work. Never mind stretching the ‘nose’ for an extra seat wouldn’t have either. Seemed to me to be a bit of missed opportunity.
How is the F22 with its internal weapons bays narrower than the F-35 also with internal weapons bays.
The Lift fan just made the airframe deck behind the cockpit continue at same height. The image doesnt show the weapons bays behind the inlets
The F35 is a very large plane , 5000lb max weight more than the portly Phantom II for the RN
The Rafale is the smaller twin naval multirole fighter
The F35 is just the same intake layout of single engine RN Hawker Sea Hawk of the late 1940s !
How would two engines effect VTOL capabilities and flight deck damage with the extra thrust and weight.
A very good question.
Yak-141 LINK
I managed to find this as well.
LINK
Also, why is there no onboard shower and toilet?
Everybodys response was how about 100% of the F35s own capability at the original timeline and price which was 2015 or something.
Block 4 has many things that were ‘LM promised’ many years ago.
An improved F-35D is 15 years away if not more.
Not for a second time, I hope!
If there’s a F35D in the future,pigs will fly!
lol, they most probably will by then, with loyal wingmen!!!
Looks like something from Animal Farm and i think the one on the right is called husk? Or something like that!
The answer is no
”Lockheed hopes to “build exportability into each of these components” — some of which are already a part of the F-35 program of record through the Block 4 modernization program — but the US government will have the final say on which upgrades will be made available to international F-35 customers, Taiclet said.”
We want our own sovereign 6th generation fighter.. not the leavings of what the US are willing to export from its final fifth generation fighter.
Hello Jonathan, My original comment was a little bit tongue-in-cheek concerning LM’s cost-saving on a fifth-gen+ version!
Does that mean the Wildcat flight on Amundsen is British? Is Amundsen not deploying with a Norwegian helicopter embarked?
You are correct. British Wildcats
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/helicopters-train-with-norwegians-ahead-of-carrier-mission/
Cheers
They scrapped their NH90s because they were so bad
neads dogs an tarps
Slightly O/T: Is CSG25 to be the subject of documentary filming (similar to the documentary series produced by Chris Terrill for CSG21/CSG23)?
Mke
Hardly “off topic”
My own answer would be “Great suggestion! I do hope so!”
However, this one is probably yet another case of
“the Navy forget to ask Chris T onboard their latest Grey Funnel Lines Cruise”
and so later this year, the Navy will continue to be suffering a “recruitment crisis” (note 1)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1: caused by the very well known issues of “out of sight = out of mind” issue.
Really impressive force considering how much improvisation had to be done to put to sea at all. Now imagine how impressive it would be if the UK military was properly funded and all 138 F-35s originally intended for purchase were actually present in the order of battle.
Never manged to get a ‘Global’ in during my time in the RN, furthest I got east was Sri Lanka on the Chatham. Wishing all the crew on CSG25 fair winds and following seas.
‘Si vis pacem, para bellum’