This Is Why You Don’t Depend On Allies

ComNavOps has repeatedly criticized our cross training efforts with allies as being pointless and because allies cannot be counted on when need arises.  Why train with someone you can’t count on?  Here’s the latest examples from the US strikes against Iran.
 
First up is Spain.  You’ll recall that it was Spain that abandoned the US by pulling an escort ship from the USS Lincoln carrier task force in 2019 during a threat from Iran (see, “This Is Why You Don’t Train WithAllies”).  This followed several months of training so that the Spanish ship would be qualified to join the task force for a deployment.
 

Spanish authorities have confirmed that they are not allowing U.S. forces to use bases in the country to support continuing strikes on Iran.[1]
 
Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares said Spain would not allow its military bases, which are jointly operated by the U.S. and Spain but under Spanish sovereignty, to be used for attacks on Iran, which Spain has condemned.[1]
 
What started as possible move of around half a dozen [Air Force] tankers from Spain to Ramstein Airbase in Germany, now appears to be a full-on withdrawal of the entire tanker fleet from Moron Airbase (LEMO) and Naval Air Station Rota (LERT) … [1]

Hey, Spain, I assume the refund for the US’ portion of the joint operating costs is in the mail?
 
 
Even America’s stalwart ally, the UK, got in on the ‘abandon your allies’ act by denying the US operating rights from bases.
 

The United Kingdom has reportedly refused U.S. requests to utilize key military facilities—RAF Fairford in England and the joint U.S.-U.K. base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean—for any potential strikes against Iran.[2]
 
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has withheld permission for American forces to operate from these bases in support of preemptive or offensive actions against Iran.[2]

I wonder what other countries denied us assistance?
 
Don’t get me wrong.  I fully acknowledge that every country has their own agendas and the right to independently pursue those agendas but this emphatically emphasizes why you don’t waste time cross training with supposed allies and you damn sure don’t contribute money to their bases or assets.  If some country wants to cross train with us or wants us to base forces in their country then they can pay the entire cost.
 
To paraphrase … With Allies like these, who needs enemies?
 
 
 
_______________________________

 
[1]The War Zone website, “War With Iran Now In Its Third Day”, Joseph Trevithick, Thomas Newdick, Howard Altman, 2-Mar-2026,
https://www.twz.com/news-features/war-with-iran-now-in-its-third-day
 
[2]Armed Forces Press website, “UK Denies American Use Of Diego Garcia And RAF Fairford For Iran Attacks”, L Todd Wood, 20-Feb-2026,
https://armedforces.press/foreign-policy/2026/02/20/uk-denies-american-use-of-diego-garcia-and-raf-fairford-for-iran-attacks/ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UK Airborne Early Warning

Despite glowing claims by some UK carrier fanboys, the UK’s carriers are not, and have never been, capable of meaningful roles in high end combat scenarios due to the lack of Airborne Early Warning (AEW), tankers, and electronic warfare (EW) aircraft.  The small size of the air wings (even after surging – a dubious concept) and the fact that the aircraft are the ‘B’ models of the F-35 further diminish the combat capabilities.
 
Now, though, the UK is beginning to explore the possibility of enhancing their carrier AEW capabilities.
 

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has issued a Request for Information (RFI) notice seeking feedback on the solutions offered by the manufacturers to replace the airborne early warning (AEW) systems currently operated by the Royal Navy to protect its carrier strike groups (CSG).
 
The new systems would replace those currently operating from the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, and would have significantly enhanced capabilities. Indeed, the MoD is looking for a system capable of operating from the carriers and providing “persistent 24 hours surveillance” with significant detection capabilities to spot both surface and airborne threats, including anti-ship missiles.
 
Currently, the Royal Navy operates Merlin helicopters fitted with the Crowsnest radar as an airborne surveillance system. However, this system should be decommissioned at the end of the decade, despite entering service in 2021.[1]

Merlin AEW Helicopter

While this is a nice step in the right general direction, no one should be under the impression that this will solve the UK’s AEW problem.  There will still remain two severe, unsolvable problems:
 
1. Lacking catapults and arresting gear, the UK’s carriers are constrained to operating helos in the AEW role which means that the size of any radar and operator station is severely limited.  Further, helos have significant altitude limits.  The Merlin, for example, has a service ceiling of 15,000 ft as opposed to the US E-2 Hawkeye which has a ceiling of 35,000 ft.
 
2. AEW, as practiced by the UK, is only half of what is needed.  US AEW E-2 aircraft are not just early warning aircraft, they are battle management assets.  The operators direct the air battle and it is this function that is as important or more so than the early warning function.
 

US Navy E-2 Hawkeye

E-2 cabin for a crew of five

 

 
Conclusion
 
The UK’s decision to go with a ski jump carrier instead of a conventional cat/trap approach consigned its carriers to lower end combat roles due to the inability to operate the crucial AEW, EW, and tanker support aircraft.  A new, better AEW helo radar system would be nice but won’t significantly alter the limited reality of the UK’s carrier capabilities.  Those who would advocate using the UK carriers as models for the US Navy are failing to recognize the requirements for high end aerial combat.

 
 
________________________________

 
[1]Naval News website, “Royal Navy seeks new airborne early warning capability for its carrier strike groups”, Martin Manaranche, 12-Apr-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/04/royal-navy-seeks-new-airborne-early-warning-capability-for-its-carrier-strike-groups/