US carrier strike group joins UK’s HMS Queen Elizabeth in North

>america has to reteach dad how to navy because he has Alzheimer's

>>34747174

Son taking dad fishing isn't so bad.

File: 1467775322286.gif (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>34747174
pls no bully

File: DGP0rfCXcAATTWc.jpg (134KB, 1200x713px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1200x713px

Wonder if there's a good chance of the two meeting up.

>>34747261
doubtless there will be a photo op of the two

>>34747449

QE is weeks away from heading to Portsmouth. Assuming she goes through the Irish sea, yeah a photo op is unavoidable.

>>34747261
Damn that deck is wide, not having an angled deck makes it look thick as fuck.

File: DFloExYWAAEcDMU.jpg (131KB, 1199x878px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1199x878px

>>34747654

Thiccc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JphDdGV2TU

File: 1500326644671.jpg (209KB, 1024x684px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1024x684px

>>34747174
>>34747203
>>34747031


Isn't it just so ironic?

I mean. I think it's incredible.

It's very profound that we are so close to the country we declared independence from that we are able to work this closely with them.

But not only work this close, but TEACH them how to operate an entire doctrine of warfare.

Blows my mind.

>>34747761
>TEACH them
Lol wut. The Brits were the only nation in recent history to actually use naval aviation as it was intended (Falklands) i.e. not just to bomb sand niggers. They had a pretty much unbroken lineage of using carriers since it was invented. This exercise is to figure out how the new Brit carrier can fit into and enhance NATO capabilities.

>>34747761

USN/USMC have been with the UK right since the beginning of the entire project QE. They're just as excited as the RN for these carriers to be a success.

>>34747822

Huge part of what's going on in Saxon Warrior 2017 is training up UK skills in managing and fighting as a CBG. RN hasn't had that opportunity since 2010.

>>34747877
Can we assume a U.K. attack submarine will be attached to the CBG?

>>34747940

A British CBG or just for Saxon Warrior?

If a British CBG, it is expect there will be at least one submarine attached.

>>34747940
CBGs typically have at least 1 attack sub that ranges out ahead

File: UK submarine.jpg (216KB, 997x1024px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 997x1024px

>>34748007
Sorry. Once the QE class is deployed.

Thanks.

>>34747822
>use naval aviation
>barely held off ancient Skyhawks and totally got cucked by Super Etendards piloted by southernmost spics

>>34747877
The USN sure was. They actually tried to lobby for the QE to be larger, saying they would be willing to help fill out the CBG centered around a QE so a QE CBG would have the same military and political weight as a USN CBG

>>34748097

For the most part this has been achieved. There will be another two carriers with room for 72 aircraft - although unlikely to be loaded in that amount presently.

However, USN is pretty happy with a 36 sized strike group given they're 5th gen and so 5 times as effective as 4/4.5 gen aircraft.

>>34747877
>>34748097
>>34748139

Why is the US happy with the new UK carrier? Does it mean the USN effectively has another CBG?

>>34748414
Sorta. Both the QE class and the CdG can support allied or NATO operations in lieu of an American CSG.

File: Screenshot_20170803-204131.png (530KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 720x1280px

Meanwhile in Japan.

>>34749170
Making plain old cardboard float seems pretty advanced to me

>>34748414

Yes, the USN is happy about having another two carriers to slot in. Obviously they're not a Nimitz or Ford equivalent, but close enough.

>>34751934

Memes aside the QE class is bretty gud. If cats and traps were everything the CDG would be the better boat but it objectively isn't. The QE is actually spiritually like the F-35 in carrier form as it doubles as a troop transport for a marine expedition and has better helo options than a cat/trap carrier.

File: vulcan.jpg (78KB, 1024x776px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1024x776px

>>34748073
>flies 6,300 kilometers and smacks your shit despite being a thirty year old bomber

File: 2013_Moscow_Victory_Day_Parade_(57).jpg (158KB, 1920x1242px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1920x1242px

>>34752493
12,300 km (7,643 mi) practical range without in-flight refuelling

So let me get this straight is the point of a Carrier Strike Group basically that the US has 12 big niggers that can breakinto the house of any country on earth and repeatedly punch the homeowner of said metaphorical country in the face nonstop for 30days. said big nigger is also a cop. he is also a judge.

>>34748414

In day to day terms, a UK CBG in the Eastern Atlantic / Mediterranean / ME waters could free up an extra US carrier for Pacific / Eastern Indian Ocean deployments. The USA's deployment of three carriers to the Western Pacific is actually a big strain on the USN since only 3-4 of the 10 carriers can be deployed operationally at any given moment without significant additional costs or disruption to training & renovation schedules.

>>34752873

Effectively yes.

>>34752878

This news article should be of interest

https://news.usni.org/2017/03/27/u-k-france-u-s-agree-increase-submarine-warfare-carrier-ops-cooperation

>Naval leaders from the U.K., France and the U.S. have signed a trilateral cooperation agreement that will allow the three navies to work more closely together – especially in the realms of submarine warfare and carrier operations

>>34752920

Could have been even closer had France gone ahead with PA2.

>>34752873
'Murica

>>34752509

Ask yourself this: when was the Vulcan designed and when was the White Swan?

File: HMS Illustrious & USS John C.Stennis.jpg (86KB, 800x482px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x482px

>>34747031
>USN providing experience for the RN to build up skills for running a CBG.
this is stupid. It's literally only been 3 years since Lusty has been decommed. Minimum service requirement for the BAF is 4 years, so most of the crew, officers and OC's have experience in carrier fleet escort duty.

>>34753301

Nevertheless the RN feels otherwise.

>>34753315
Because british military doctrine during peacetime is to spend 90% of the time training on exercises. There currently isn't a single regiment in the Army that isn't either deployed somewhere, in a combat environment, or on exercise. I'm not as accustomed to RAF training, but it's significantly harder to conduct large scale training ex's in the Navy, compared to the army.

To the RN and Westminister, 3-4 years of no actual carrier fleet escort duty is effectively 300 years, despite most ships, and her crew, often escorting the Albion class ships. And, of course, HMS Illustrious, before she was decommissioned.

>>34753336

Not sure what point you're trying to make, since I agree with everything you've just said.

Although, having said that. There's a difference between providing escort for an Albion or Ocean and working as a CBG.

>>34753301
>>34753336
I think its RNAS caldrose where they've constructed a 1:1 raised platform for QE carriers to simulate handling. With the harriers we kept in storage. they even have gutted F35 frames for handling too.

We've also had ocean and RFA argus to handle heli ops.

Before anyone asks Yes we still technically have Harriers in service, but only for up and downs, same goes for jaguars and ADV tornados for the RAF

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2017/june/28/170628-replica-training-jets-ensure-aircraft-carrier-ready-for-safe-aviation

>>34753301
Retarded bongs forgot how ships work while they beat off to Achmed railing all their women

>>34753301
>this is stupid. It's literally only been 3 years since Lusty has been decommed.

Except it was only being used as a helicopter carrier. The harrier has been retired and even before only operated in Iraq.

>>34753838

Quality post.

>>34753301
She hadn't operated Harriers since 2010 though. So make it 7 years.

File: 1418114303443.jpg (223KB, 794x1061px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 794x1061px

TLDR

>Yanks starting to panic when their carrier isn't the best anymore.

Hope you enjoyed your playtime son, time to give the controller back to daddy.

>>34756315
pls ignore the non brit posting bait ameribros

File: IMG_1161.jpg (52KB, 748x797px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 748x797px

>>34756315
> ramps

>>34756364
> still having 100+ knuckle-daggers on deck on any one time

File: ali_g_rezurection.jpg (260KB, 620x412px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 620x412px

>>34747761
As a bong, the profundity of this occurred to me too.
You were always a stubborn lad, but family is family.
>>34748073
You mean
> totally fucking mauls superior numbers of Argentine jets with subsonic fighters
> 20 confirmed a2a kills, 3 probables, 0 air to air losses against faster, newer jets (4 lost to accidents 2 to ground fire)
> 28 aircraft flew 1335 combat sorties in 45 days in shit weather flying from a fucking RAMP
>Argentine losses totalled 75 fixed wing and 25 rotary aircraft (including accidents, and one ASW helicopter sunk)

>>34756486
I'm pretty sure knuckle-daggers constitute a serious hard FOD risk and would likely be picked up during FOD walk down before any flight ops.

>>34756740
Most of the Argentine fighters had strike packages and didn't have any A2A capabilities aside from their guns, of course the Harriers mauled the shit out of them with brand new Sidewinders the US sent over.

They did beat up Mirage IIIs, but they were ancient even at the time.

>>34747174
fpbp

>>34748414
Think of the entire British military as another Marine Corps for the US.

>>34757025
Marines actually have more active duty guys than the whole British military does.

>>34748139
Citations needed.

File: uss-fitzgerald-collision-ps-170619_16x9_608.jpg (46KB, 608x342px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 608x342px

>>34747761
>but TEACH them how to operate an entire doctrine of warfare.
what, are the yankees teaching the brits how to crash into civilian tankers and die?

>>34756956
Hence why they wear funny helmets and bright coloured uniforms

>>34747822
Americans think that only their navy actually trains regularly (which is wrong, they sit around as much as everyone else) and that any exercise with other nations is a teaching environment and not just "let's get together and practice what we'd do together anyway if the chinks get more uppity than they already are"

it really is why no other force on earth likes american visitors on their bases, they're stuck up uppity self-entitled niggers. the french and brits and kiwis etc generally understand that training as a group isn't charity from one force to another, it's just group training

>>34757039
two british subjects have a higher collective iq than the entirety of the USMC though

>>34757072

The Royal Navy has their fair share of recently running into shit despite having a small fraction of the number of ships the US has, let alone ships deployed globally.

The Royal Navy IS relying on the US to teach them these skills again. I don't know what the name of the programme is for Royal Navy personnel training on US ships, but there is one. The RN programme for re-learning maritime patrol is called seedcorn.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/maritime-patrol-aircraft-capability-regenerated/

>>34757156
Seedcorn isn't about being taught by America, it's about borrowing planes from America

>>34757156
>re-learning
nah it's just an exchange program so they can come back with info on how other forces do things

canada has a similar program with the RN, as well as Aus and New Zealand. does this mean we're "teaching" them or they're "teaching" us? maybe in a grand sense, yes, but it's not as if we're taking new zealand children by the hand and going "see kid this is a 'plane' we use it to bomb le bad guys :)" like you seem to think americans are doing with foreign navies

File: QE CSG.jpg (138KB, 1200x909px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1200x909px

>>34757156
>The RN programme for re-learning maritime patrol is called seedcorn

Sustaining, not re learning.

People regularly laugh at the RN for it's small ship numbers and large numbers of admirals.

But the purpose if this is to maintain as much knowledge and experience as possible.

much of the budget goes on sustaining the whole spectrum of skills, R&D, Intelligence gathering and processing ect.

We have skills/experience parity with the USN in most regards, with even some areas we excel - ASW for example.

this is in comparison to navies like china for example who spend as much as possible on hull numbers, but their experience is non-existent.

If it looked like a situation was developing then we could rearm over a few years (T45 could have been built at a rate of 1 every 6 months had it been needed, but it was built at a rate to sustain shipyards). we could double the size of our fleet in 3-5 years and have enough experienced officers to make it all work to the same standard.

it's really easy to mock the RN, and most brits do, but there is a method to the cuts believe it or not.

>>34757406
Yeah our whole military seems to be designed as a "pre-attack mobilisation base" to borrow a phrase, with rudimentary peacekeeping / power projection capability

File: SDSR Tasks.jpg (165KB, 815x864px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 815x864px

>>34757732
Each Strategic defence review has been tasked with optimising our forces for 1 medium intensity conflict such as operations in Afghanistan, while simultaneously being able to provide forces for two low-intensity operations, such a peacekeeping or Ariel interventions like we see in Iraq/Syria.

If a future threat develops then budgets and priorities will be adjusted accordingly.