After entering the Mediterranean on 29th April, HMS Prince of Wales and the ships of the CSG arrived off southern Italy to participate in the tail end of NATO exercise Neptune Strike. This has now concluded and the first major exercise of the deployment begins tomorrow.
Exercise Med Strike in runs from 5-11th May in the Ionian Sea and will bring together 21 warships, 3 submarines, 41 fast jets, 19 helicopters, 10 maritime patrol aircraft and over 8,000 personnel from across the NATO.
Med Strike is a rare opportunity for two NATO carrier strike groups to operate in close coordination. The UK CSG is will work alongside the Italian Navy’s ITS Cavour CSG to rehearse a wide range of joint operations, including complex anti-submarine warfare, carrier strike integration and air defence in a congested battlespace. In common with the RN, the Italian Navy operates F-35Bs and this will provide another chance to practice cross-decking the jets to deepen interoperability. This was first tentatively explored during the return leg of the UK CSG deployment in November 2021.
Alongside the UK and Italy warships from Canada, France, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United States are also involved in Exercise Med Strike.
Meanwhile it was announced this week that the Pacific Future Forum 2025, will be held on board HMS Prince of Wales while she is alongside in Tokyo, Japan between 29-30th August. This is an international summit dedicated to strengthening defence, security, technology and trading relationships among democratic nations. This is the 7th iteration of the forum, previously the Atlantic Future Forum was hosted by HMS Queen Elizabeth in New York in 2018 and 2022 and in Portsmouth in 2020. The 2021 Pacific Future Forum was held on board HMS Prince of Wales Portsmouth as the Tokyo event planned to be held on her sister ship was cancelled due to COVID.
HMS Prince of Wales has steamed into the Med like a debutante with torpedoes, kicking off Med Strike — NATO’s latest flex in the Ionian. Twenty-one warships, subs lurking in the deep, and more flying kit than a Top Gun reboot. Not bad for a warm-up.
We’re rubbing shoulders with the Italians and their sprightly Cavour group — they’ve come a long way since espresso and harpoons. F-35Bs cross-decking like it’s a naval Tinder date, proving when it comes to joint ops, we can still play nice (mostly). And hats off: the Italian Navy’s getting slick — even their LHDs are getting in on the act.
Now, I’ve seen a few deployments in my Dukey days, and this one’s got all the right flavours — from layered air defence to a proper game of hide and seek with submarines. It’s serious graft, but with enough swagger to remind anyone watching from Moscow or Beijing that the RN’s still got legs — even if our warship numbers are starting to look a bit… boutique.
And Tokyo later this year? If PoW pulls up alongside flying the flag for democracy with sake in one hand and strategy papers in the other, she’ll be the belle of the Pacific.
Mousekid
Nice post
One very minor correction.
The RN’s capabilities are not “boutique” = they are “niche”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Go vent away.
Trieste is not ready yet for F35
Great moaning no cat and traps?
?. The certification flights should start this year.
I’d read a while ago about Cavours mission to Australia. She took 15 aircraft with her. 6 F35Bs, 9 Harriers plus 8 helicopters. Useful airwing. Looking at her size she’s about equivalent to the old HMS Hermes
Testing the water! Time for an upgrade, perhaps?
PASSEX with Italian and Japanese navies:
“HMS Spey conducted a Passage Exercise (PASSEX) with the Italian Navy (ITS Antonio Marceglia) and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JS Yahagi) in the South China Sea. PASSEX is a training exercise where warships from different nations operate together, enhancing their interoperability and communication.
HMS Spey’s presence in the South China Sea is part of the Royal Navy’s broader commitment to maintaining regional security and stability as part of the Five-Power Defence Arrangement. It also serves as a demonstration of the UK’s commitment to working with partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific region.”
LINK
Hi, Nigel. I’d like to read a bit more about the Passex with the Italian and Japanese ships, but your link is to a write up on Exercise Bersama Shield, a different five powers exercise off the coast of Malaysia. I can see some photos of the three ships that undertook the Passex on X; is there anything more substantial you are aware of?
Good morning Jon,
My point in posting this was to potentially rethink what armament needs to be added to this class of ship, as it appears that it will be conducting operations outside of just fisheries protection, etc.
I did manage to find this. Is it of any help?
Cheers!
Thank you. Interesting, but last year’s in the Med.
I’m not sure if Tamar or Spey have ever done fisheries protection. I know what you mean about them broadening their role, and that should give us pause for thought. I know you don’t rate their 30mms, but outside of a major shooting war I think they’d be enough. Enough for slow drone attacks. I think CAMM in a POD would be the best route ahead for emergencies. If OPVs ever get into a toe to toe with a proper warship, they’d be screwed no matter what extras have been added.
I’d want to see the RB2s get a good ISR drone or two before new weapons. I wonder if the Tekever AR3s that the RAF are getting for EW would be good for the RN as ISR. At least better than Puma. Up until now the AR3 has looked expensive, but with RAF ordering in volume the price could well come down.
Rivers are not fit for propose with missions they have been doing.
If Iran via ( Houthis, Heez or any other Islamist militia) wants to damage/sink it can do it.
All they have been doing is patrol and observation. They’re fine for that
I wonder if their roles could be split into different configurations depending on the task. Personally, I think it would be wise to make the most of what we have available!
Bofors 40mm Mk 4 x5 (60% lighter than a Phalanx mount) 2/3 configured for Wildcat, or 2/3 configured for ASMs.
The Krabi Class has Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles onboard. Would it be possible to house the NSM/JSM instead?
The Krabi class has a different mission within a completely different doctrine of operations.
Regarding the article, above, the RN has sent a type of vessel other nations would consider a coastguard cutter into a contested zone which frequently sees coastguard cutters ramming each other. The optics of this are “interesting” in light of the UK’s goal of demonstrating high-end capability with the CSG25 deployment.
If we were to regard the use of HMS Spey (instead of a frigate or destroyer) in this role as a problem… then the solution is simple: keep building the Type 31 hulls until we’ve got enough to cover all these deployments, and stop increasing the cost of T31 with mission creep by adding items like Mk.41. The solution is definitely not trying to cram more weaponry and sensors onto a platform that was never designed for them, and which would require that platform to spend so long in refit getting those systems installed that you may as well add the time and resources to the budget for an extra T31 hull.
Type 31 cannot replace River because it has more than twice the crew
Why no one here criticise the Italians for not getting Cat and Traps?
Well quite.
The Italians probably looked at the costs spreadsheet of
– catapult capital and integration costs
– catapult team
– catapult maintenance
– pilot training
– pilot re-training and re- certification
– long pilot training times
– limited number of takeoff/landings before components need replacing
– limited sea state compared to VTOL
– inability to VTOL land on other platforms or lillypad
I could go on and on with that list but cats’n’traps isn’t a magic bullet and RN is so far down the F35B route that it is quite demented to try and change direction now.
F35B was and is the only viable solution to UK carrier ops that was and is vaguely affordable.
Now whether something else is done for drones is quite another question. The difference in range between F35B/C is immaterial operationally but if you could produce a cheap drone tanker that would be very significant.
However, I would suggest that an experimental drone carrier with catapults would be a better than cutting up QEC.
Deconflicting drones to work in an area where humans and £Bns of jets and cabs are is non trivial particularly it is an intense EM environment where comms channels can be an issue.
Slightly off topic does anyone have access to to any Farnborough 2023 show reports where the GA/SAAB UAV AWACS concept was shown?
You might find something via this link?
Thanks Nigel but my original question arose because of this article in ESD Sept 2023;
The Expanding Market for AEW&C Solutions
Luca Peruzzi. Had tried Google AI but as per link it uses a quotation from the article but doesn’t link to the show report “source” , which I believe is a GA presentation (page 6??).
Completely agree that an auxillary carrier would be a good way to go if we need cats/traps.
But long before that, perhaps some drop tanks for the F-35Bs would be low hanging fruit. I know you’d need stealthy droppable pylons too, but the drop tanks that were under discussion for the F-35A several years ago carried 2×600 US gallons or 8000lbs of fuel, nearly as much as the hypothetical deliverable amount of the MV-22 VARS system (10,000lbs including from internal tanks). However, Lockheed weren’t even thinking about tanks for the B or C by that point and now seem to have given up on the idea as the USAF don’t seem to want it. Then there’s buddy tanking: expensive in execution, but very cheap up front. These two things as a combination could deliver considerable extra reach without the need for cats, traps, new ships or new planes.
Buddy tankering isn’t terribly realistic. As you are clocking up very heavily loaded take off and frame hours on the single engine.
I don’t think there is even an F35 project to buddy fuelling?
Whilst USN have F18 buddy isn’t a day to day occurrence.
The question is how to do the drone learning bit quickly and cheaply and then bring that knowledge back onto a QEC?
Nobody is operating mixed drone and fighter carriers ATM which tells you something about tech maturity. The test flights that have been done are all clear decks.
Supportive Bloke
I totally agree
I would add the further observation that, at some point in time, it becomes completely unrealistic to add more weight (esp fuel) into any carrier based aircraft.
The size and weight of any carrier based aircaft – whether (urgh) “cats and traps” or “STOL” – is, ultimately, dictated by gravity.
So, in the carrier based aviation R&D process, it soon become completely pointless to even try to defy the laws of physics……
————————
Thus if I was the dictator running UK fixed wing combat aircraft procurement today (for all three UK armed forces) I would hsve only three types of combat plane in the entire UK fixed-wing fleet:
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Are you suggesting in your TEMPEST option a 5 gen version of TORNADO or something bigger like a F111 or even VULCAN!
I’m not suggesting aircraft based on these aircraft but 5/6 gen of their size,a VULCAN 2 would certainly make RUSSIA take note,might make Trump take us seriously also!
TEMPEST
Nig e
The key issue with Tempest R&D today is that is is being specified by the RAF as an “unobtainum” multi-role aircraft
Thus the Tempest programme is rapidly heading towards being the 2020’s version of the RAF’s 1960’s multi-role plane: TSR2
Years late, overbudget and the final design a bodged-up compromise
= a figher-bomber-recce “jack-of-all-trades” and hence master of none!
—————-
If I was in charge, I would drop all pretentions of it being a fighter bomber….
No compromises with anything”dog-figher-ish”
…and so no getting Biggles to insist on having “Red Arrows Avionics”- = which is the truely eye-wateringly expensive bit to design and build..
So, instead of developing the RAF Tempest fighter at vast expense….
——————–
Very little known at that time was the fact that the original 1950’s era RAF Vulcan had a remarkably small radar signature (spoilt only by its huge vertical tail)
So, yes, with wingspan of about 30m “ish”, that is what I would go for today.
That “big wing” has great aerodynamic properties, which is what you really really want for both a seriously long range plane which can carry a proper payload
So, with the development since the 1950’s of much better
Thus a modern Vulcan 2 specification becomes:
The UK’s potential enemies of today and tomorow – Russia China, Iran, Yeman, and North Korea (note 1) – are geographically far further away from our home bases than they were back in the days of original Cold War (1945-89)
Back then the assumption was that the RAF Vulcan would hit targets in the Warsaw Pact (Eastern Europe) and especially in the eastern (European) part of USSR.
However that is the range specified for Tempest today = BIZZARE
Thus specifying the 2020’s plane to have the very same range as the original 1950s; Vulcan 1 bomber is not just be daft – it would be extememley daft
Because today East Germany, Poland and Ukraine are our alliesl
——————.
And over this weekend – the Houthis/Yeman hit the Israelite’s main civilian airport – with a long range IRBM more capable than anything in the UK’s conventional missle inventory today
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
Note 2
I’m in total agreement with you about spec for Tempest. RAF need to specify an aircraft for a specific role rather than one with yet ANOTHER multi- role capability that meets none!
My worry is our PARTNERS and what they want from this aircraft
And will it compromise our needs!
Can i also add BAe systems who will, I have no doubt want to build an aircraft they can sell to their middle-eastern customers, rather than one which UK needs.
I’ve noted French intentions to rearm their aircraft with nuclear weapons & possibly reactivate ICBM sites, Should UK do the same?
Good points, and I don’t think there an ongoing project to do drop tanks at the moment either. Nor cats and traps for that matter (although there’s the one to talk about doing cats and traps). I wasn’t thinking of drop tanks or buddy tanking as a day-to-day occurrence. Just occasionally, when they can’t get Voyagers into position, it could hugely increase range.
MQ-25, the closest drone to maturity, with or without an auxillary ship would end up costing us well over a billion. I think if that’s the route we consider, we’ll end up with nothing.
Sometimes the best solution is to sit back and wait a bit and then make an informed choice based on maturing tech.
Nobody else has organic AAR – even USN doesn’t – and that isn’t for want of trying.
MQ-25 is lovely but eye wateringly expensive. I’d want to see it deliver in spades spending any money on that it isn’t in the ‘take a punt’ territory.
As for drop tanks they can just go on the wing pylons and be dropped before the F35 enters the detection zone. But is there plumbing for that? If there isn’t then aux tanks are a dead duck as we won’t want to have the costs of unique aircraft to certify.
The Voyager thing is all well and good until you are doing a Falkland’s or something in the Pacific or need to do something in a hurry and can’t wait 12 hours to get RAF to get a Voyager planned, fuelled and into position. Plus we don’t have enough of them so there will be a scarcity factor if something big kicked off.
Yes, there are wet stations, but the last I read even after the drop tanks have been dropped, the pylons themselves compromise stealth. I’m not sure if that’s something they ever fixed, so it’s not just the tanks that need to get sorted.
Jon
Anything ATWLBPO (note 1) from the exceptionally smooth surface of any low observable (stealth) plane severely compromises its radar signature.
Peter (irate Taxpayer)
issue is that Current max take off weight, for a STOL is the restriction, due to the thermal discharge of the engine. remember when a F35b set fire below deck on a USN or Italian carrier. the thermal coating on the QE class is a sacrificial coating, and nearly impossible to repair at sea.
was trying to find that link to that cat launched drone system that basically is fitted ti the side of the ski ramp that launched a fat drone with fuel and only returned when empty.
Contrary to RN QE the Italian carriers don’t have size for Cat and Traps. It was not in the menu. For QE it was a viable option.
Cat n traps stopped being viable for the RN when we built Invincible class, and the Royal Navy trimmed its carrier ops personnel numbers and costs as outlined above.
UK had no option on fast jet as soon as BAEs killed the Sea Typhoon by wanting to full redesign it.
air ops is to CAP for the fleet and you can cycle a F35 Quickly.
RN used to use Wooden MOW and we developed the navy, why are we so obsessed with Cats n traps when the Ford Class is still cracking wings and fuel tanks, and cannot launch fully loaded aircraft.
EMALS was considered unproven and un reliable, Still is
Well cats and traps are essential for AEW
Our long term problem maybe what comes after F35B! Are drones THE QEC only life time option?,only the USMC has kept the VTOL dream alive, but! For how long? The Trump era may well see F35B as the last of this line leaving UK,ITALY,JAPAN and others with hard longterm choices!
B-52 will be in service for 100 years :)))
First flight 1952.
From DefenseNews
“This $48.6 billion overhaul is intended to keep the (eventually redubbed) B-52J operational until about 2060 — meaning the Air Force could be flying nearly century-old bombers. When the last B-52 was delivered in 1962, it was expected to last 20 years, the Defense Department’s inspector general said in a November 2023 report.”
Different kettle of fish, love to see a F35B last half that long,but i suspect working in a maritime environment unlikely!, B52s will have new RR engines!
As a point of interest does anyone know what the Max flight hours of a F35B is?
if we get 30 years out of our F35Bs i think we will have done well. 30 years in aviation now is like decades previously
Our QEC vessels have 40-45yrs left what comes after F35B?
That is the thing, bearing in mind that Russia/India & China launch traditional fighters off ski jumps. i know the QEs are a 50 year program but i doubt they will still be in service.
we are lucky if they get 25/30 year mark and not laid up
F35B will be replaced by F35E.
Look how long the F16 lasted , its improved versions which do that
B52. was designed and built in a different era. to different design and they built 744 In total. now only 76 are airworthy. compared to 134 Vulcans built. B52 was saved because the B1 was expensive and B2 limited, B1 Suffered the same problems as the Vulcan.
Again, Crowsnest as a stop gap. F35 radar is more powerful than a Sentry E3. Hawkeye large undefended target with a high radar signature. modern systems far more efficient.
and again high flying podded drone in 5 years will replace Hawkeye
remember Start of WW2 RN Aviation was Swordfish, still took out the Bismarck.
F35 does not have the flight time or radar coverage to act as AEW
Jon
You are correct about the B1 and B2.
The orginal B1-A design was rapidly overtaken, by the development of stealth, in the late 1970’s.
The B2-B was then developed, mostly to keep the huge Californian aerospace production lines humming…
Then its planned replacement – the hugely expensive B2 building programme – was a very early casualty of the “peace divident” in the early 1990’s. Hence only 20 are still flying….
That stopping of all bomber R&D happened because the one and only prime target of both the B1 and B2 bombers, the USSR, had just – both piolitically and economically – totally collapsed…
Also not to be forgotten that the later models of the B52, the H, had vastly better engineering. So it had significanlly improved capabilities over and above the earliest 1950’s B52 models
However, in very marjked maked constrast to the USA……our RAF simply lost all interest in flying big bombers once the Navy took over the nuclear detterent role in the 1960’s.
Instead Biggles preferred flying small and agile fighter bombers: ones without the necessary range to ever hjit strategic targets
Thus the Vulcan’s design was never ever improved – and thus the inside of it always looked like a 1950’s Bakelite radio – until it went out of service..
….unlike the B52H
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
how long does it take to cycle a F35 Was the point.
We’re struggling to even get enough onboard
The Italians and Turkish navies are the two forecast to improve the most in the next 10-15 years.
They’ve both got big plans that should deliver highly capable regional forces with the ability to project a task force worldwide if required.
Turkey may well build a carrier comparable to a QEC and have a medium weight advanced destroyer design about to begin construction.