The Ministry of Defence has moved to clarify the status of the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing system for the UK’s F-35B Lightning II jets, after a series of written questions from Conservative MP James Cartlidge.
The UK Defence Journal understands that the capability has been delayed rather than cancelled, despite wording in the 2024 to 25 defence accounts that triggered reports suggesting it had been abandoned.
Across three separate answers, Defence Minister Luke Pollard restated that the SRVL system remains in development and that equipment already installed on HMS Prince of Wales is unaffected. Pollard said the system underwent initial trials in 2023 and that a commercial partner is still examining the results. “The results of those trials continue to be analysed by a commercial partner, and when complete will enable the Ministry of Defence to make an accurate assessment of the benefits and cost of further developing the SRVL system for operational use,” he told Parliament.
SRVL is intended to allow the F-35B to recover aboard a carrier with a higher bring-back weight by combining a short rolling landing with the jet’s vertical lift system. Earlier concern centred on jets potentially needing to jettison ordnance or fuel before landing if the system were removed from the programme.
The confusion stemmed from an entry on page 140 of the MoD’s annual accounts describing a “SRVL upgrade cancellation” of about £300,000. Pollard said this referred only to the planned fitment of SRVL equipment to HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2025. “The SRVL upgrade cancellation listed on p.140 of the MoD Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25 refers only to the fitment of SRVL equipment to HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2025,” Pollard wrote. “There is no impact to the equipment already fitted to Prince of Wales, and the MOD retains the ability to fit such equipment to Queen Elizabeth when the outcome of trials in 2023 are fully understood.”
Pollard repeated that the decision reflected a resource judgement rather than a reversal of policy. “This represents a Defence Choice; weighing up costs and benefits to prioritise the MOD’s resources effectively,” he said when asked what the term meant. The clarification aligns with earlier statements on 25 November 2025, when ministers confirmed that SRVL “has not been cancelled” and that the schedule was being re-profiled to align with wider weapons-integration work.
What is SRVL?
Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing, or SRVL, is a carrier landing method that lets jets touch down with greater weight by combining forward motion with vertical thrust. Instead of slowing to a hover, the aircraft keeps some speed on approach so its wings generate lift while the engine provides controlled thrust. This combination allows pilots to land safely without discarding fuel or weapons before reaching the deck.
The process occurs on an aircraft carrier at sea and blends elements of both vertical and conventional landings. The jet rolls onto the deck with forward momentum, uses wing lift to stay stable, and relies on vertical thrust to settle precisely. The technique is especially valuable for aircraft like the F-35B because it supports returning to the ship at higher all-up weights.
Blah blah blah, bull&^%£ etc and soforth-should read… We do not have the money right now. Please bear with us, and we try to confound, bullchit and bamboozle you all, with total garbage.
🥱
I still feel that during construction, the carriers should have had the angled deck built, regardless of the carrier being CATOBAR or STOVL. To my mind doing a SRVL on a through design is inherently risky, especially in crap weather and heavy seas. The RN invented the angled deck for a reason, to separate landings from parked aircraft.
But Stovl and Catobar are completely different layouts. The angled deck just wouldn’t be used because we don’t even need to do SVRL
You’d reduce the risk of crashing into parked aircraft and also avoid any failed landings from being caught under the bows, but are go-arounds even possible with SRVL?
Also having a parallel deck is apparently much easier for the pilot to line up on and land on in heavy seas, which was part of the reason for CVA-01 having one. I don’t know how that translates into automated landings but it certainly removes one of the variables.
Showing the continuing costs and sub optimal decisions resulting from the decision not to install catapults, so that ships with a nominal service life of 50 years are tied to a single fixed wing manned combat aircraft type.
🥱
It is sensible enough, but also another translation, we are so cash strapped even £300k goes a long way when added to lots of other in year savings ( cuts. )
I agree the decision in itself is sensible: given the glacial pace of new weapons integration we’re unlikely to need SRVL for at least another five years! However, this clearly shows that the services are still being asked to find savings. This, given we have a war on our doorstep and other potential (maybe not even “potential”) enemies all over the globe, beggars belief.
Let’s face facts: this government is kicking the can down the road in the hope they’ll never have to honour the promised increases in defence spending.
1. The cost of a few F-35B’s having to dump ordnance in order land back on will quickly make £300k look like petty cash
2. I strongly suspect that UK carrier based F-35B’s operate in hot weather with minimal ordnance in order to avoid 1.
3. HMS Queen Elizabeth commissioned in 2017 and conducted the first SRVL trial in 2018. Over 7 years later and we still have no idea if the capability will ever be implemented.
4. Safety concerns seem to be a key issue. A VL is highly automated and can occur on a busy flight deck. SRVL requires significant pilot input and a clear runway.
5. The supposed advantages and affordability of SRVL was one of the factors used to justify configuring the QEC as STOVL rather than CTOL. Cancelling SRVL would again call in to question that dubious but twice made (2002 and 2012) decision.
To add though, I read that F35Bs bring back ability is greater than thought, and for heavier weapons it doesn’t yet use anyway?
It is installed on PoW, yes? The Bedford Array?
What struck me was statement that, “the system underwent initial trials in 2023 and that a commercial partner is still examining the results.”
That’s a long time isn’t it, or am I missing something?
If the commercial partner in question is Lockheed Martin, are you surprised?
The Bedford Array was developed by QinetiQ
‘The cost of net zero for the UK is estimated to be around £1.4 trillion over 30 years, with the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimating £800bn over the next two decades’
There is your urgently required defence budget right there.
What is the absurd idea of ‘net zero’ based on? It is based on a few dodgy models incapable of getting even close to replicating the real world data recorded climate that actually happened since the models were constructed.
Drop the profoundly silly ‘net zero’ and concentrate on the very real and immediate threats to national security that confront us right now.
Another idiot who doesn’t understand basic science outs himself.
Slinging insults at someone who does not see it as you do? Well throw some my way mate. There are millions of us.
Read these and come back when you know what you are talking about:
Scaffeta, N (2023) CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures. Climate Dynamics
60, 3091–3120 (2023).
Spencer, R. W. (2024). Global warming: Observations vs. climate models. Environment Backgrounder The Heritage Foundation.
Vogelsang, T. and N. Nawaz (2016). Estimation and inference of linear trend slope ratios with an
application to global temperature data: Journal of Time Series Analysis 38.
Santer B D, P.W. Thorne, L Haimberger et al. (2008) Consistency of modelled and observed temperature
trends in the tropical troposphere International Journal of Climatology 28 1703–22
Connolly, R., M. Connolly, W. Soon, et al. (2019). Northern Hemisphere snow-cover trends (1967–
2018): A comparison between climate models and observations. Geosciences 9, 135.
Christy, J. R., R. T. McNider (2017). Satellite bulk tropospheric temperatures as a metric for climate
sensitivity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 53, 511-518.
Its a scam end of. Some are coining it, the public? Question it and you are in the “climate denial” brigade. Cannot upset the faux science can we?
That was the obvious interpretation from the start.
But the doom-mongers had to make more of it 🤦🏻♂️
In isolation agree it seems sensible. It was included in quite a list of cancellations though which didn’t make happy reading alongside the governments words and the reported demand for 2 billion saved this year before more money becomes available later?
We seem to have a big increase in articles and content coming from George and UKDJ, which is appreciated.
But in reading them all I’ve noticed something missing which I’d become accustomed to…..half, quarter, or full Witt!
Where is he?