The Royal Navy’s ambition to fly an uncrewed combat jet from one of its aircraft carriers has been given a firmer timeline, with the Ministry of Defence telling Parliament it intends to conduct an embarked demonstration of a Collaborative Combat Aircraft from a Queen Elizabeth-class carrier within the next eighteen months.
The intention itself is not new, having been set out by the First Sea Lord, General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, at the DSEI defence exhibition in September 2025, when he told industry the Royal Navy intended to launch its first jet-powered collaborative platform as a concept demonstrator off a Queen Elizabeth-class carrier “as soon as next year”, and what has changed in the months since is the context around it, with the latest commitment now restated on the record by a minister, attached to a defined eighteen-month window, and made explicitly conditional on the Defence Investment Plan, the spending document over which the Defence Secretary and Armed Forces Minister both resigned a fortnight ago.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard, set out the plan in a written answer to the Conservative MP for Huntingdon, Ben Obese-Jecty, who had asked what progress had been made under Project VANQUISH, the effort to deliver a short take-off and landing, jet-powered autonomous platform able to operate from the carriers.
Pollard said progress on the project was “focused on feasibility, industry engagement, and option development ahead of any acquisition decisions”. While investment decisions remained “subject to the outcome of the Defence Investment Plan”, he said, the Royal Navy, working with industry, “intends to conduct an embarked demonstration of an uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft from a Queen Elizabeth Class carrier within the next 18 months”.
Project VANQUISH itself is not new, having been trailed as the Royal Navy’s route towards operating autonomous jets from its carriers, but the commitment to actually put a Collaborative Combat Aircraft onto a carrier deck within a defined window moves the programme from concept towards a concrete trial, even as the larger questions of what is bought, and when, remain unresolved.
A Collaborative Combat Aircraft is an uncrewed jet designed to fly alongside crewed aircraft, carrying sensors, weapons or electronic warfare payloads and acting as a force multiplier for a smaller number of crewed platforms. For the Royal Navy, fielding such an aircraft from the carriers would expand the reach and mass of the air wing beyond the F-35B Lightning, the only fast jet the carriers currently embark, and would fit the wider Hybrid Air Wing concept set out in the Strategic Defence Review, in which crewed jets and helicopters operate alongside uncrewed aircraft.
The carriers have already been used as trials platforms for uncrewed flight, with fixed-wing drones having been flown from and recovered to their decks in earlier demonstrations as the Royal Navy works through the practical challenges of launching and landing autonomous aircraft from a ship at sea without catapults or arrestor wires.
The familiar caveat hangs over the programme, with Pollard tying any acquisition decision to the Defence Investment Plan, the unpublished spending document on which a long line of capability choices now depends, from the Crowsnest early warning replacement to the future of the surface fleet.
Sadly fixed wing is taking longer than thought, we still have crows nest and no replacement soon. Do like co axial pusher helicopter like the Sikorsky x raider if they did a drone version??
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
UK funding migrants and benefits instead
Benefits, of which the largest single component is pensions.
I had hoped to have seen the taranis project reach the level of being combat capable. Officially it is still in development and no other details can be found this video of the taranis Google taranis drone to see the video of the early testing flights
Is anyone aware of the contenders? Or are they going to say jet-powered but end up getting MQ-90B STOL because they go ‘Erm, actually, technically it’s a gas turbine engine”
GA have shown Gambit 5 operating on the small Australian LPHs, that indicates some level of STOL capacity though small arrestor gear might be required. BAE’s ACP is listed as STOL on their website but there has been next to no information on it. I feel like there’s another but those are the two I can think of off the top of my head.
I can’t seem to find anything on Gambit on the LHD. Where did you see that? I forgot that the ACP will be comparable to the BAE Systems Hawk advanced jet trainer, but there’s also the Concept 2 UAV. I forgot they unveiled designs a few years ago.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.—>>> PayAtHome1.Com
how many times do we have to tell you to fuck off?
It’s a picture in the background of a Naval News video from a trade fair, the header image of “General Atomics targets East Asia – and its helicopter carriers – with its UAVs” shows a Gambit using a short catapult from the bow of a Dokdo LHD, and no sign of arrestor gear. As a much longer runway is available on the QEs with enough power taking off STOL is also possible.
That is the thing with QEC: a run at the ski jump is very possible along the long deck allowing speed and therefore energy to accumulate.
It is interesting that F35B don’t take off using the full length of the deck but start to trundle from around the island area.
Did the harriers use full deck, obviously the carrier deck was shorter? Stovl is much more gentle process than cats n traps.
The deck was a lot shorter.
Take off tended to be in front of the lift.
Parking tended to be behind or to the side of the lift.
Yeah, I thought it was going to be from that event. Not really an in service airframe.
excellent it will be interesting to see which drone is used. its a shame it won’t be the the taranis, british designed and built. drone on the few videos on the net, it looked very impressive google taranis drone. i worry about the attrition rate with drones, they seem remarkabely easy to shoot down.
i’d imagine, as usual the american gambit 5 will be in the running to be the aircraft.
Does anybody else ask questions of rhe Government other than Ben Obese-Jecty?
I thought this, but there is a reason he asks so many military based questions, he was formerly a Captain in the Army.
We should focus on getting a MALE like MQ9B STOVL onboard able to do AEW, MPA, Cruise and anti ship missile strike as well as land based ISR and interdiction.
For everything else F35 is fine.
This seems like total waste of time and money at this stage unless use an actual developed capability which I don’t see happening.
Because as we’ve seen in Iran, drones like the MQ-9 get shot down easily whenever doing something combat related
And maybe add on wing fuel tanks for the F35B?
With stand-off ashms, there’s so little anti ship capabilities considering the lack of subs and only a few ships fitted with NSM and relying on Wildcats is not very adequate. Why no JSM or Marte for F35B and Typhoon’s respectively? I think Italy has both why not the UK? Nothing on the P8s either. Gaping gap here.
And maybe add on wing fuel tanks for the F35B?
With stand-off ashms, there’s so little anti ship capabilities considering the lack of subs and only a few ships fitted with NSM and relying on Wildcats is not very adequate. Why no JSM or Marte for F35B and Typhoon’s respectively? I think Italy has both why not the UK? Nothing on the P8s either. Gaping gap here.
Traditionally things move less slowly at sea.
In 1945 the FAA aboard HMS Implacable discovered some abandoned SH Kittyhawk Teardrop shaped Drop Tanks from a US depot and trial fitted them to their short range Seafires; this was something the RAF had notably failed to do except fit those ungainly slip tanks which were unusable in combat. The Droptanks worked brilliantly and improved deck landing performance and increased range significantly.
I think the FAA should start their own trials with UK built offensive weaponry and droptanks. Sod RAF, LM and the War Department.
MQ9B would be good but I don’t think it’s worth risking drones like that over land any more. As the US have found out with no missile launch warning, flares or chaff they are hugely vulnerable to MANPADS and other air defences, while the self protection pod with those things that GA are developing can only go on the central pylon replacing the maritime radar.
Keep it for MPA, standoff strike and AEW and it would still make a huge difference to the reach and abilities of the CSG.
Thing is that it would be a fully RN funded capability.
If there were MQ9Bs on board would it be used as an excuse to put less F35Bs there?
Given the likely costs and maintenance of a small fleet of MQ9Bs there has to be a very good reason to not just buy more F35B.
I think a purchase of MQ9B would turn our carriers into sea control platforms rather than strike carriers. No other navy has anything like SeaGuardian operating from carriers, even the S-3 Viking couldn’t match a MALE for endurance or range and wasn’t much faster. Having something like 8 MPAs and 4 AEW on board wouldn’t max out the carrier even with 24 F35s as well.
The maintenance cost for MQ9B isn’t huge, GA claim $3500 per flight hour which is quite a lot better than F35B! Carrier operations would increase that a bit but if we, for example, replaced the 24 F35s of the next batch with MQ9B it would be cheaper in the long run and give the Navy a unique capability.
Do we actually need drineson out carriers? Or should the government take its head out of its backside and order the F35Bs need to give these ships a decent airwing? We have the ships, but not enough planes, it’s laughable!
Because we’ve only just received the first batch of 48th aircraft in April, which was ordered back in 2012. And the 75th F-35 delivery by the end of 2033, if we buy the 138 F-35Bs. Not sure if that number now includes the F-35As or if they will be additional or ordered. I think the MOD is waiting for block 4 as well. This could be why a shift towards CCAs in order to buy cheaper and pad out airframe numbers.
There are plenty of US weapons we can put on our F35s without needing to wait for Block 4.. At the end of the day, it’s one procurement disaster after another, and we simply refuse to learn the lesson that off the shelf purchases give you the very latest weaponry for a better price here and now. The F35 is the very best western 5th gen aircraft out there, and we should have placed orders for greater numbers which we knew we would need a long time ago, but successive governments have failed our armed forces. ‘Padding out’ with drones is not the answer
Because SPEAR 3 is better than any US equivalent as is Meteor, and if we buy lots of weapons they know the strategy of pretending they can’t integrate our stuff so we buy American works.
Why hasn’t the UK not put the Spear 3 on its Typhoon’s considering its already been integrated? What are they waiting for? Wasted opportunity for some capability fix here.
The MOD only intends Spear 3 for F-35 for some reason. Probably to save money.
There is at least some movement on Meteor with early testing having started on F-35B.
still going to be very,very expensive toys.
“Explicitly conditional on the DIP”.
Hmmm.
To have any decent drone we’ll need CATOBAR and also to make it safe, running what will essentially be a small fighter jet with no cables to catch them could get very costly very quickly.
Short of the traditional type drones like the MQ-9B none of them are properly STOVL, and certainly not with a good payload.
A single catapult would make it far more effective, most importantly in AEW, where the LoyalEye MQ-9B, currently our only reasonable option for fixed wing is still hardly as good as something like the E-2. But even if not a full sized system a 45 or 60 metre long catapult with smaller arrestor cables would still allow for high end fighter drones, the MQ-28 Ghost Bat is getting on very well, Batch 3 soon about to come out which is about half an F-35 payload but double the range and ≈ 30m (USD), and the manufacturer says it could be made carrier capable without much difficulty. Or a homemade similar design, but any of these will be better than trying to make a STOVL which will either have a payload so small it’s not worth it, or have a lift fan and pretty much just be an F-35 but worse.
There are designs that can lift a decent payload from a carrier without a catapult or a lift fan. Tailsitters, blown-wing, tiltrotors, etc. They have trade offs, to be sure, and we can’t buy American off the shelf as easily. There are also designs that can operate STOBAR. I’m not convinced catapults on the QE class is the best solution.
We should dust off those blueprints for the Fairy Rotodyne 😂
A larger version of the Airbus RACER would do a similar job with no noise problems, but there would be some justice in reviving the Rotodyne.
We need to be clear that is not an operational capability. All that is envisaged is that late next year POW (or just possibly QE) will head over to the American east coast and spend a week or so conducting trials with one or more CCAs. To encourage OEMs to participate, the MOD will pay participants a few $/£ million to help cover their direct costs. But the manufacturer will bear all costs related to developing, adapting and preparing their platform for the trials. Three things are already clear:
1. It was originally hoped in that the trials would happen late this year, so 9 months into the programme we have had a 12 month slippage
2. A BIG assumption is being made that OEMs such as GA will invest in the trials, in the hope of eventually landing a lucrative order at some point on the future
3. Everything is dependent on DIP endorsing and including some funding for hybrid air groups.
Good summation. 12 months slippage after 9 months and DIP dependent. 👍
And it still gets headlines, so adding to the impression that HMG are acting and the QE Air Group will be expanded.
Yes, nothing to see here until there really is something to see, an order and real CCA on deck, bought, owned, operated.
Till then.
Hi DM how are tricks Mate ? According to a MOD source : “VANQUISH will be a high-subsonic, jet-powered aircraft able to take off and land from a QEC carrier without the need for catapults or arrestor gear”. Do you have insights as to the possible contender aircraft? I’m liking the Turkish Bayraktar Kızılelma but I believe it requires arrestor gear to land on a carrier deck- so I guess that rules it out .
Hi Chris.
I’m in good spirits mate! 4-2 to England!!
I’ve no idea, sorry.
all good Mate – congrats on the win!
Exactly, basically 5+ years of talk by UCAV’s/CCA’s, … but almost nothing show for it. Compare with what Turkey has done in the same time!
What little that has been done seems to have been funded by 1SL using his discretionary spending authority as a Top Level Budget (TLB) holder of up to £50M – assuming of course that the cash is there to spend!
hybrid? does anyone really believe in all of this SHYTE?
Will we get a “Full Load” or just 12 ?
So we ‘had’ to get rid of the Harrier because although reliable, able to shoot down supersonic jets using supersonic missiles and on plentiful numbers it wasn’t supersonic and now we are going to have lumbering ‘drones’ instead? Then we have to wait months while the Ukrainians have been flying drones for years in combat. Of course the russian civil servants in the MOD will manage to find an excuse to replace the f35s (which break down anyway) with half the number of drones
We had to get rid of the Harrier because it has an immense front-aspect RCS due to the open engine fan, it would get swatted by BVRAAMs from hundreds of km away while not being able to give its own missiles enough launch energy due to being subsonic. Any UCAV would have at least equivalent performance while being more modern and stealthier.
Well add some fuel to the missile and it’s got enough ability..as to the radar issue the f35 runs out of petrol after 10 yards, turns for home and appears greater than the qe2 on radar.
These are excuses not reasons, we know that in any real war scenario we need to take it.enemy razer, it’s been like that since the invention of it, the Germans even tried taking out.chai. Home
Then you have a heavier missile that makes the harrier even slower and shorter ranged, while the enemy supersonic, stealthier fighters still hugely outmatch it as a Harrier couldn’t carry something like a PL-15 or R-37 or the radar to use them well.
As no doubt you are aware, F35B well outranges Harrier and even an unrefuelled Super Hornet. Its range is only poor in comparison with the CATOBAR F-35C and land based fighters like Typhoon and F15.
Or a more efficient one, but lets go with heavier, thats fine, the Harrier has a LOT more range than the F35, the F35 in most cases doesnt make it to the runway never mind takes off because its broken down or the yanks have turned off the servers that make it work in the USA
Harrier II combat radius: 556km
F35B combat radius: 833km
F35 has low availability, yes, but so would decades-old Harriers.
We coud have probably 20 times as many decades old harriers and maintain them, the f35s are brand new and not available. The harriers stayed available even in the mess of the south atlantic! As for the combat radus, was the f35 calculated in the same way as the range for a battery car?
So a demonstrator “as soon as next year”, which doesn’t mean it will actually happen in that timeframe, then how long for whatever it is to be evaluated?
We need a replacement for Crowsnest. The rest of the UCCA ambition is pointless and almost certainly a money pit. With funding so tight, we cannot afford to throw more money at the carriers. They are good enough for what we need; improving availability rates of the F35 should be top priority.
and hank the yank pulling his fingers out and producing ours faster.