The UK’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will be equipped with deck-launched long-range missiles and uncrewed aerial systems as part of sweeping upgrades to their strike capabilities, the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) has confirmed.
Framed as a shift to a more powerful yet cost-effective fleet, the SDR outlines the Royal Navy’s move toward hybrid carrier air wings that pair traditional crewed combat aircraft with autonomous platforms and strike weapons launched directly from the flight deck.
“Carrier strike is already at the cutting-edge of NATO capability but much more rapid progress is needed in its evolution into ‘hybrid’ carrier airwings, whereby crewed combat aircraft (F-35B) are complemented by autonomous collaborative platforms in the air, and expendable, single-use drones. Plans for the hybrid carrier airwings should also include long-range precision missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck,” the review states.
This marks a defining shift in the role of the UK’s carriers from purely launching jets to becoming multi-domain strike platforms capable of delivering long-range missile firepower. It represents a step-change in operational flexibility and lethality, with the carriers positioned as central assets within NATO’s evolving maritime posture.
The plan builds on the UK’s ongoing Future Maritime Aviation Force programme, which has explored a variety of uncrewed systems for carrier operations. The Mojave short take-off drone trial in 2023 was an early indicator of this trajectory, demonstrating the feasibility of launching large uncrewed aircraft from a carrier deck. Recent exercises have also seen the integration of smaller drones for surveillance and logistics.
While the SDR does not specify which missile systems are under consideration, the reference to “long-range precision missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck” points to ambitions beyond current F-35B-launched munitions. It may suggest a move toward vertical or ramp-launched systems that could be deployed independently of the carrier’s air wing.
The hybrid air wing model and integration of deck-based strike missiles are part of a broader Royal Navy effort to deliver a “high-low” mix of capabilities, blending high-end platforms with more adaptable, autonomous and digitally connected systems.
I wonder if this will shut anyone up about not having 36 jets onboard. Sounds like a 21st century Kiev class 😀
That’s not a good thing
Let me echo: really really not a good thing.
No, it really, really isn’t. If you want lauch long range weapons, just give our F35Bs long range stand off weapons instead of coming up with crazy ideas like this Having some sort of large weapin on a carrier flight deck makes it extremely vulnerable, remember Midway?
Plus firing it means you can’t launch jets because FOD.
Agree with paul, stand off weapons on f35.
And you wait 10 years for the weapon to be qualified in F35?
Alexs
There is a difference between qualified & actually. A large proportion of Ukraines weapon systems are not qualified. Doesn’t mean they don’t work. Qualification is a peace time thing for those with nothing else to do. The war will be over before “formal qualification” is achieved. WW1 was over & done in 4 years. WW2 was 6 years (unless you’re American). 10 years? This is modern low risk (don’t blame me) stupidity. Ukraine just wiped out a sizeable proportion of Russia’’s “strategic bomber force”, thousands of km behind current front lines with not a “formally qualified weapon” in sight.
UK is too infatuated with disease called legalitis.
Remember RFS Moskva- hit on deck by two weapons of medium calibre- large fire, cannister mounted heavy weight anti-ship missiles cooked off- result total ship loss and hundreds of crew killed.
A VLS strike silo would be viable- if mounted off the carriers wings with blow out panels in case of being hit- deck mounted cannister launched weapons- probably a big NO stay away from that concept.
strike length VLS with LRASM/ Tomahawk, NSM, Future strike cruise missile would be viable as long as mounted on pods off the ships side and not on the main hull. two silos one on each side would ensure balancing and correct trim.
Agreed. Terrible idea.
An utterly brilliant idea and well worth pursuing. The modern aircraft carrier should be multi -functional including unmanned aircraft and the ability to fire missiles with medium and long-range capabilities.
Are we looking at V2’s launched from the deck, or V1’s launched up the ramp I wonder?
Yeah Kiev class was a complete failure.
Why?
It was not proved to be a failure. The Yak 38 was a failure so the missiles were a correct edge.
I can see the idea of converting container ships, or even a RFA ship for firing long range missiles, but an aircraft carrier? IMHO, definitely a bad idea. Maybe to add air defense missiles, yes, but stand-off attack weapons? Aren’t those the F-35B that the carriers are flying off their deck? Diluting the purpose of the carriers is a bad idea. It may end up sending a ship into the wrong place, at the wrong time.
I have no problem with this idea, I think it is very good one.
lts says UK have a 2000km missile or a missile with some very specific characteristic, i am for example thinking of large deep penetrators.
Put a container in QE deck and fire away. Note that QE deck do no limit a missile to MK41 size, Sylver size.
Also the same issue for F-35, it is inherntly limited by the weight it can carry, by even bigger limitation if needs to presrve stealth and by range. An F 35 do not have 2000km radius for example.
This capability adds significant flexibility to QE.
lts says> Lets say.
I’ll believe it when it happens.
Some kind of canister launcher that can then be reloaded in the hanger?
It was ridiculous when the Houthis put missile launchers on their converted container ship, and that wasn’t even a proper carrier. It will be ridiculous when we do it, as well.
How about giving F35B an actual standoff weapon before 2033?
Sorry, Iran not the Houthis
Could just mean they plan to fit the f35b with longer range missiles. That could classify as long range missiles launched from the deck.
I took it to mean just as he said. Long range precision strike missiles fired from the deck.
Not the deck, surely. FOD.
Hmmm
The statement is ” long-range missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck”. So yeah from the deck. I translate that as off the f35b or a drone but who knows.
Maybe they mean a long range strike drone, could be single use like a drone version of a tomahawk.
Like I said on another post defence Secretary talking in riddles 🤔
They said deck twice, it’s no a typo. 😀
Is there a nuance between “deck” and “flight deck”?
The USS Gerald R. Ford; CVN 78 rolls with –
2 × Mk 29 Guided Missile Launching Systems for 8 RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles are postioned below the flight deck.
Not positive where the 2 × Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching Systems for 21 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles are on the Ford, but on USS Dwight D. Eisenhower they are below the flight deck.
I realise these are not long range missiles thus FOD issues may be different.
Precisely. “”Plans for the hybrid carrier airwings should also include long-range precision missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck,” the review states.” Say it ain’t so, probably attributable to an exhausted review author polishing the nth revision of the SDR too late in the evening, perhaps w/ a tankard of ale or some of Scotland’s finest export at hand. 🤔😉
I’m pretty sure that means long range missiles fired from carrier capable aircraft
Not FCASW?
If it is, it’s just more re announcing old news as new.
Why didn’t he say “Our carrier aircraft will be equipped with LR Missiles”?
Not sure mate. Strange announcement. At least no cuts for once. That’s a win at least. Some good ambition. Just needs the cash to back it up. Some of this stuff won’t see the light of day until well into the next decade.
No cuts?
There were…..months ago!
If they’d not been done then this SDR would amount to words, wishlists and cuts with no confirmed funding.
It could be as simple as they are adding sponsons with MK41 VLS or MK70 for Tomahawks or something similar, whichever way you look at it they are fired from a deck they just pass through it 🤷🏼♂️
Was there not mention of £6bn in efficiency savings? Yet to be confirmed as to what they are, but sound like cuts to me.
Remember scrapping the two LPDs, the Puma fleet, and Watchkeeper was all to save £500m (over a few years). So £6bn is going to be substantial ‘efficiency savings’.
@Carricker.
Yes. I’m hoping, assuming, praying, that that is from civil service headcount cuts and, sadly, base closures.
Both Starmer and Healey said no more hollowing out, and there’s little left to cut!
Reductions in regular personnel were also ruled out in the document, and the review team noted the move to 2.5% enabled them to avoid further capability cuts.
I immediately thought of the new 2000k uk German missiles.
Park a Troop of their launchers on deck! 🤪
I’d have thought that this would be something more appropriate to the Albion LPD’s, fitting them with NSM or a version of Himars ATACMS
Oh yeah, sorry, they’ve been sold…….🙄
A relatively cheap and quick fit out by adding such to the Ships sponsons which can take many variations of weapon both offensive and defensive a plus to the Ship.
No from the deck.
Only weapons that go from a flight deck are mounted on aircraft. Having anything else would be a negative to flightdeck operations. A fit to sponsons also doubles as magazines as having loose weapons carriers in a hanger is a NO NO and takes up the limited space within. TLAM gives you a very long strike range and such a weapon fit together with even local area SAMS eases the burden on escorts. No brainer really.
Still we will see as the services are in dire need of some strong leadership that actually knows how to fight and that includes fitting out our assets correctly.
I’m not – but I wish. Putting JSM on our F35 a no.brainer to me , already cleared by USAF , Norway , and the Aussies for their F35 so the software fix is there and USMC have a stayed intent to put it on their ‘ B” s . A ready made solution and available now – so that’s why it won’t happen.of course. 🇬🇧👎
I think FC/ASW Will provide the next gen long range capability. But it’s a few years away.
Ukraine can manage to fire a western missile using an iPad (or equivalent) from a Soviet era fighter jet. It can be done. If F35 can’t do it, use F35 as the carrier & something else to fire it.
Should of course have read USMC have a STATED intent and I should have added Italy too who are going to put it on their ‘F35B to fly off Cavour .If course one issue is that on the ‘B’ JSM can’t be carried internally as the lift fan addition means the weapons bay is just too short but you can carry four under the wing with a full AMRAAM load out within. Of course JSM is pretty stealthy in itself and one tactic that could be made to work is have a strike group carrying JSM go out in fast andow under radar and with a scout pair up front and high in full stealth mode and with only an AAW load to do the targeting piece .
Hi Robert, my take as well. I wonder if the narrative got lost in translation?
Now, I want to be optimistic, but I would like to clarify what they mean by “deck-launched long-range missiles”. Are we referring to something akin to a Martlet cluster? If so, yay.
If not more capable Martlet.
I suspect it more likely to be something like Vampire or banshee . Long range jet powered fired from a catapult.
Agreed.
Banshee is hardly long ranged. 2h endurance at 400kts still gives lower range than F35 plus Spear, with a similar warhead size.
I’d hardly call 8km Long Ranged.
Didn’t the Americans kind of try this with plonking a couple HIMARS on one of there helicopter carriers?
She needs proper air defence missiles, not a deck launched long range strike missile. Might as well stick a treble 16inch gun turrent on her.
What do you suggest? Must admit this doesn’t seem to be the biggest priority, sounds like a capability the escorts, or some new hybrid vessel would be better utilising. Gets a little potentially embarrassing if the ship that that’s built for and launches F-35s which were designed to penetrate and strike targets at long range can outrange them with precision strikes themselves. Tends to suggest 1) that they are struggling to add a long range weapon to the F-35s and/or an acceptance that the F-35B itself, whatever its positives will struggle to provide long range strike capabilities due to its limited range and and the threat of effective very long range missile defences. The problem with that mind is that similar threats are developing to the carriers themselves which again asks is a Carrier the best platform to exp.oit long range strike missiles because you aren’t going to risk a carrier where you might a Frigate, Destroyer or other vessel. Starts to get a circular argument.
Yep leave long range missile strikes to the escorts and prioritise MK41 across the board, especially speed up getting a 32 cell MK41 on all T31 . Buy more TLAM now but future proof to allow for LRSM or whatever , then free up the carriers do do what they do best . I would however equip all our F35 with JSM
Thought that there were at least preliminary studies re addition of conformal fuel tanks or drop tanks to all F-35 variants to increase combat radius, at one point. Have lost the bubble on this topic, anyone have a current update?
I think Lockheed have been given other priorities for the F-35. However there was an Israeli initiative. That went silent about three years ago following unconfirmed discussions in the Israeli press that the capability was in place (with the aim of striking at Iran without requiring in-flight refuelling). There weren’t any indications if this was the Elbit drop tanks or the IAI conformal tank, just a new capability to fly longer distances without refuelling.
There’s an ongoing (I think) project to give the F-22 stealth droptanks, and there was speculation that these would be transferable to the F-35. Prototype droptanks were photographed on an F-22 around this time last year. For all I know they may be in service already.
Good point, carrier based missile having further range than carrier f35 with missile, would be embarrassing.
Going to say the same. Where’s any increase in defensive armaments/decoys/Dragonfire/40mm? I thought it was the MRSS’s role for canister land strike? What about some CAMM/CAMM-MR to avoid FOD issue?
Absolutely, there are several more important adaptations in terms of surface warfare than offensive weapons for the carriers themselves:
40mm/DEW/Ancilia for the carriers
Strike weapons for T31
CAMM for the carriers
CAMM-MR for T31
CAMM-MR for the carriers
Large strike weapons for auxiliaries and escorts
Then, finally, maybe putting strike weapons on the carrier deck
Exactly. If they’re talking of putting huge long range missiles onboard why not small some vls cold launched CAMM/CAMM-MR? Move the starboard Phalanx up onto the forward deck and build out the area left there. Add a couple of 40mm or replace all the Phalanx’s with 40mm.
Could this also mean surface to air missiles?
SAMs aren’t usually characterised as “precision”. They either hit or they don’t. I think what they had in mind was something akin to the Mk70 launcher used on the LCS.
Having a read of the SDSR itself and seems there isn’t much in the way of new stuff confirmed, just a lot of consider doing x or y once funds allow. Disappointing part is it doesn’t recommend increasing the land force number in light of the new threats, so it’s very much a review on a budget.
It confirmed an immediate increase to 76,000 for the Army with a desire to grow the other 2 services.
That’s like, 3000 extra guys, don’t get excited
That’s already a start.
If they form CS CSS Regiments for 4 Bde or a couple of extra GBAD Regiments that’s a great help.
That’s more like the start and end of it, right now they can’t even reach 73000
On the other hand: An Army not being 100% manned is far from the Historical exception. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find any force that was 100% of it’s authorised strength.
True.
No, I don’t think it did.
3k for the Army.
IF they can sort recruitment.
And by the next Patliament.
Healey was quite clear they will try, but wouldn’t confirm anything beyimd trying to fix recruitment.
Did you read the document? It does recommend an increase.
The recommendation was to maintain the force number? Where did you see it increase?
This is from the report, which is the same regular force number as current?
“The Army must evolve its mix of Regulars and Reserves, with a minimum of
100,000 soldiers, of which 73,000 are Regular.”
Actually it’s slightly less as the trained force as of past year was just under 74k but assume just variances in year by year data.
There’s a desire to increase the Regulars to 76,000, as stated in the SDSR. It’s in there, just buried.
A desire isn’t a commitment. There is a lot of if budget allows comments, which are designed for when and if the budget goes to 3%. I was focusing on the recommendations which are likely the ones that will happen, which was just maintain.
Steve it is in the recommendations. “A small uplift in Regular personnel should be considered when funding allows.” The uplift being 3k is the bit that’s buried in the text.
It’s in the SDR, it was also specifically mentioned in parliament army 7600k and a clear commitment to CSS.
It’s not more troops we need we’ve got enough non mech or otherwise non mobile marching infantry as it is . What we need to do is to.properly equip the ones we’ve got . Replace Warrior with a decent IFV , CV90 or Puma or even better reinstate Warrior CSP. At the very least put a decent turret and gun on Boxer, also as a minimum reinstate the third MBT Regt within the RAC and allow QRH to keep their tanks. All comparatively cheap and simple fixes that can be delivered with speed and within existing manpower constraints . We can’t afford to wait until the 2030’s IMHO .
@Pongolo
No we need more troops. No point in having a third RAC regiment on tanks if there aren’t the enablers to support them, and at the moment the British Army needs at least another 6ish regiments of CS and CSS, possibly more if the asipration is for a Corps with 2 Divisions.
What Dern said.. we have the heavy regimens and infantry battalions in place.. it’s the fact they lack the CS CSS to form fully deployable brigade combat teams..
It actually says the 7600,000 should be the minimum and I may be more… it’s on the two pager SDR summary document.
Read the full report not the summary. the summary is for press statements and headlines and the full report covers what can be afforded and what they would like to do if funds become available. The increase is very much in the if funds become available category. Government official statement is we would like to increase but not during this parliament and no confirmation of when. So just paper talk, no actual increase.
It’s still part of the official record it’s not a press release..everyone who writes a very long complex paper also writes an executive summary.. so I’ve read both thanks.
At least they have confirmed the carriers are getting some serious drones. Wonder if they are still going down the route of adding medium catapults and landing gear.
Yep and by definition also confirmed the carriers are safe when some on here had been predicting their demise. That alone is a result in itself.
Very much so.
Cheers Daniele we usually agree on so such things. Much like an Italian mate I used to have on that excellent forum CVF Construction News , Gabriel was his name if I recall . A first rate bloke . 🇮🇹👍🇬🇧
👍
Overall still a bit lacking though, even a few solid short to medium term commitments would have been welcome.
Carrier Trolls I feel post with an agenda.
Two of the best assets we have, cutting them would be insanity.
Wonder if they’d explore costings for a more medium to heavy catapult to give more launch options for heavier-bigger?
Is anyone else thinking this is an MLRS parked on deck or it it just me
Container launched Tomahawks, move them up and down via lifts and transfer to the large auxiliaries as necessary for launching or reloads
You cannot easily transfer a tomahawk missile to another ship, let alone store it
Any strike by the F35s would be much more effective if proceeded by 36 Tomahawks?
On a previous article there was the idea from various posters of having a 5th Dreadnought used as a arsenal type land attack sub? Leave the carriers for carrier ops. Sounds more sensible and a useful backup to the 4 nuclear subs if needed.
In the 1980’s, the US Navy mounted Tomahawks in armored box launcher on their larger warships.
On their larger surface combatants; carriers as missile platforms is inherently inefficient. The Russians did it because they didn’t have the doctrine or economics for true carriers; their alternative was huge missile salvos, with the airwings basically existing to provide token air defence and scouting.
It would be far better to fit whatever weapon system this SDR is referring to to a destroyer or frigate, or spend the money on more munitions and drones for the carrier wing.
I agree, the only logic might be very long range drone swarms that could only be utilised from a large carrier and its flight deck. If you don’t need that option then far better from a different platform.
Trident launched from a shipping container on the deck, lets go.
a carrier already has aircraft that are supposed to do long range strike.
wouldn’t air defence VLS make more sense?
my 2 cents
From the deck sounds strange, if it was a one way drone, surely they would say long range attack drone.
F35B with JSM makes more sense to me and I am sure I read somewhere that the US Marines wanted this, unless our carrier ramps will create too much stress on launch?
Surely we need to get the Mk41 launchers into T26 and T31 and load them with long range attack missiles before putting a carrier into a risky position.
Only thing I can think is this is the new 2k range missile which won’t appear until the late 2030’s or someone is finding a way to blag some Mk41’s onto the carriers to quad pack CAMM with an excuse of long range attack missile capability?
It’s all smoke and mirrors…..E7 , regular army and other increases ‘when funds allow’, up to 12 AUKUS subs which won’t start until the next decade and then at 1 every 18 months will take 18 years to build and will then probably be obsolete due to unmanned drone subs.
All of this undermined if the government changes in four years time, clearly money is available, they have just announced £16B investment in transport/trams etc in the North of the country.
Am wondering if they are hoping the economy improves to increase GDP value to allow for announcements on the specific increases later in the year.
We need 76k+ regulars, 2 more E-7 min, some A400′ (why did we not just keep the re-winged C130’s), decision on medium sized support chopper, more F-35B, Typhoon and a follow on for T31 or T32.
I don’t see the need for F35A, it would take a few years to procure, cannot carry our weapons and may only be in service for 6 or 7 years before Tempest is online.
Fingers crossed that the treasury thinks defence is more important than some trams !
Please tell me this is two months late!
Soviet carriers had banks of anti ship missiles.
So why are we retrofitting at a much higher cost.
Those weren’t carriers they were cruisers with some bad planes attached. Either way this is a bad idea
HMS Furious had an 18 inch gun. So clearly the precedence is there for carriers to have 18inch guns right 😀
Maybe some front end helicopter decks and a rear turret, for future frigates?
I wonder how far a 18″ (457.2mm) shell that uses the Nammo ramjet design would go, if the 155mm version is expected to reach just over 150km? Taking it further, how far would a 18″ shell with a 16″ sabot go, that uses the Nammo ramjet design?
I think this is a bad idea, that’s what you have escorts for, in fact I’m concerned that this is seen as a cheap option to mitigate the shortage of escorts.
Royal Marines to be integrated within the SRC (led by the Army?)!
SRC?
NATO Strategic Reserve Corps, one of which will be the ARRC with 1 and 3 UK Div plus allied formations attached.
Ah yes, the other being French I recall
Well yes? The RM have always been folded into higher level Army HQ’s. During Telic they where integrated into 1 UK Armoured Division (Army), during Herrick they fell under 6 UK Division (Army). So the idea that UKCF would be placed under the command of ARRC is hardly shocking.
I hope they are talking SAMs here…
Had to make sure it wasn’t April there.
I have to join the chorus of those who find the proposal to launch long range missiles from the deck of the QE carriers a strange and probably even dangerous recommendation. Definitely seems something best left to VLS fitted escorts. Gives me some concern about the expertise of the SDR team.
Utterly bonkers idea. 🤦🏻♂️
It’s on par with suggesting Astute’s should be fitted with a 5” gun file NGS or fitting a torpedo launcher on Challenger tanks.
So how big do the canvas screens and the props have to be fir these new amphibious ASW Chally tanks??
You might be onto something here…
I havent heard of an Astute deck gun, but I have read that the Valiant Class were investigated for a 4″ gun mount (from D.K Brown in Rebuilding the Royal Navy).
Actually when you consider the construction of ships of that era and the cost of torpedos (anti-ship missiles were not so much a thing for such boats), the deck gun had merit.
As we seem to be migrating away from the Aster / Sylver VLS on most new builds to MK41, could it possibly be that some bright egg has realised that being the odd Carrier operator out is not a good idea.
We are the only carrier operator who doesn’t have any AAW missiles on our carriers, so perhaps putting a couple of sponson on them with MK41 for CAMM and TLAM fits the bill.
And yes I’ve heard the perpetual arguments about FOD, but everyone else seems to think FOD is the least of your worries when someone is lobbing missiles at you.
ABC,is this in the same sense of crew not being allowed on the fltdeck while cwis (Vulcan or goalkeeper) firing,due to,FOD release?🇬🇧🕳️🙃 btth.
Sorry, qualifier being Invincible class flightdecks.(How did we do it,so little room) Seadart thrown in too.🇬🇧 FlyNavy 🕳️🙃.
Ships travel forward and the draft goes aft over the back end taking all the muck with it. So if fitted aft then little problem with FOD. SAM fit and a few TLAM thus easing the burden on the few escorts available sensible fit.
If fitted aft it could interfere with aircraft approaching to land. If cold launched CAMM for should be minimal so I think the starboard Phalanx could be moved forward and its current area used.
There’s a big difference between AAW missiles on a sponson and long range strike missiles fired from the flight deck.
This could mean the proposed Land based anti shop missile increment of PrSM which has a range of 620 miles/ 1000km and a multimode seeker able to target shios and land targets.
We can’t tank F35B so it would match the realistic strike range.
Park a Himars launcher on the deck.
Australia is interested in it, and could be part of the shared development of hypersonic speed weapons.
Seems daft to me. We don’t want to turn the QEs into a Russian-style carrier with missiles.
If these were simply defensive missiles like SeaRAM, then fair enough. I’m all for additional defensive armaments for the carriers. But unless these missiles are purely to be used from the F-35s operating off the decks (which it doesn’t sound like) then it’s just a waste and pointless. The carrier’s offensive armaments are the aircraft it carries; clue is in the name.
Missiles firing from the deck is just going to create problems with debris and smoke on the flight deck. And anything other than parking a launch vehicle or containerised system on the deck is going to require work to install them, upping the cost, taking them out of action for potentially months and reducing useful space both on deck and below.
By all means, increase offensive armaments to the frigates and destroyers escorting the carrier; the more punch there, the better.
Guess your not a sailor then? Lots of places on large vessels to place such that would have little impact on operating the carrier. Ships generate their own over deck wind too thus clearing air issues with smoke etc.
If that’s the case then please tell me why Russia is the only country to have done this, and that no one has ever taken their carriers seriously?
Are/were you a sailor, by the way?
Adding offensive missiles to a carrier just negates the point of it being an aircraft carrier. The carrier’s offensive armament is its aircraft. By all means, stick these missiles on F-35Bs or drones.
Both China and India have taken Russian carriers and the first thing they did was get rid of the deck missiles. However Vikramaditya and Lianoning have defensive surface to air missiles, and it wouldn’t be dumb to fit CAMM and Dragonfire on UK carriers now-ish rather than attack missiles in the future.
Dragonfire receives short shift in the SDR, with mentions of future technology and the possibility of DEWs integrated into autonomous systems. Dragonfire was supposed to be accelerated prime time stuff, with three ships getting the system by 2027.
Yes I am and served on carriers so have some insight. The Russian ships were more of a well armed heavy cruiser as their aircraft were nothing more than a token effort but the fit would kill a enemies carriers.
They do need their self defences improved for sure as they have less than the old Invincibles even after the Seadart was removed.
We have too few hulls to not use what we have better. A simple fit of Mk41 launchers gives lots of options to what you fit them with. SAMS, ASM or land strike, impact on flight operations would be nothing at all really but really adds the the punch of the carrier as we will never haev enought fast jets to fill the flight deck sad to say.
… and yet US Aircraft Carriers bristle with multiple Missile defence systems, including the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier that preceded the Enterprise Class, been there, seen them.
I did say I’m all in favour of defensive missiles e.g. SeaRAM.
I’m opposed to filling the deck with offensive missiles. I’d rather they go onto the escorts.
This will end up as being a “Jack of all trades and Master of None”!!!!!! These systems need to be on the escorts or in the airwing. The carrier needs self defence system not large missile system. The deck is the primary weapons launcher with aircraft and drones ready to launch.
It does very much say around strike missiles in the end…as in a long way in the future, it also says deck launched..I don’t think people are quite taking that in..its not talking about some Russian carrier with missile silos and tubes it’s taking about something launched from the flight deck, after all we don’t call NSM deck launched do we ?
So this means they are first looking at a long range single use drone off the deck then possibly gradually to a missile that could be launched off the deck.. so essentially your looking at something like a single use strike verson of banshee that you wheel out and launch or if they get catapults for drones a single use strike drone launched from there..
Why is that not a good idea ? If you can fly off single use strike drones from your carrier and not have to used your hyper expensive irreplaceable F35B to penetrate an integrated air defence system.. hell yes.. after all we know ukriane have been popping in explosive warheads on banshee derives and shooting then at the Russians so why cannot we use banshees or something like them as a low cost strike option from our carriers ?
Is it April 1 again?
.
.
Sounds/reads like a compete idiot’s solution to not purchasing sufficient aircraft to fill the aircraft carrier.
.
.
If the requirement is for long-range strike from the aircraft carrier, then the requirements should detail a long-range air-launched munition, if not from the present F-35B platform, then from a successor aircraft; specify if necessary a nuclear capable warhead option, and that then solves the light-blue re-introduction into nuclear politics (which I am sure has a certain truth component).
.
.
Serious amateur hour reading 🙃. Was it proposed by a light-blue officer? Seriously (“…Sorry old chap we cannot deploy to the carrier as the (army?) launchers are in our spot…”). No mention of this fanciful LR weapon system – launching “..off the deck” implies a mobile launcher, army style one can only assume over a ship fitted launcher, of which the most common expected would be a VLS over a trainable (non existent) launcher. Whoever is proposing this, clearly has no idea how to employ a carrier, so again, light-blue, army, mod, politician who has undertaken a sphincter and mouth reversal treatment? Such a stupid idea compromises the aircraft carriers aviation missions, would add to FOD (I can hear the light-blue now “…mind getting your chaps to do a sweep old boy”), constrain positioning the carrier for carrier aviation missions vs deck strike (🤭), take up weapons storage from aviation munitions (further reducing carrier group strike /defence missions.
.
.
Anyone thinking this is a good idea is proof that reproduction should require a license – since natural selection has clearly failed.
They are already using deck launched drones with a wheeled launcher on the carriers.. this is essentially just expanding on the whole banshee concept… which now has its own flight in 700x navel air squadron.
To be frank, you could easily scale up the Banshee, to twice the size without compromising the aerodynamics. It will need a better engine at this point, be that the propeller driven or the jet version. But it would add a significant amount of range due to the additional volume used for fuel storage, along with a bigger warhead or electronics payload. I see no reason why Leonardo’s Britecloud electronics could not be mounted in the Banshee, as per the recently announced StormShroud drone. Which would give a carrier group a persistent and expendable jammer operating off a coast, or it could penetrate inland to wreak havoc on air defence radars. The larger sized Banshee would put in a similar class to the Shahed 136 suicide drone. Where it could trade range for speed depending on the payload and engine fitted.
That seems sensible and I could see a role for the RAF as a low level reconnaissance or strike drone, but I still can’t see how it’s preferable to F35 plus JSM from the carriers.
I’d say it’s a numbers game. Sure the F35 is the ultimate delivery system, especially if it is armed with JSM. But how many will the carrier be carrying, 12, 24, 36 or ….? A scaled up Banshee could be used in numbers as they can be disassembled and stored easier in numbers. The war in Ukraine War has shown that a large number of “cheap” drones sent towards a target are difficult to intercept completely. What I am suggesting is that a group of Banshees, might in certain circumstances be a more efficient weapon to use against a target than a F35, depending on the threat level.
So what having carriers with either manned A/c and drones OR when short of F-35’s put load of naval HIMARS type vehicles and drones?
Just strap any ground launched missile system to the deck. (Wheeled in/out of the hangar) Not saying it’s a good idea but US Marines have already tried it.
I can think of a wide varity of ways in which to spend the extra cash – and this isnt it. In fact, this is so far down my list that I can’t quite believe it.
This is literally a Frigates job.
Yes
You could not load say 200 long range strike drones on a frigate..you could on the carrier.
You could on an auxiliary, and those 200 strike drones will take the place of 10 F35B. I know which I’d rather have.
Hi torpedo.. no the drones would be stored in the ships magazines..it’s one of the reasons it would work for the carrier and less so for say a bay class.. the carrier has very large magazines for ordinance.. so stacking a load of drones would not impact on the number of f35
Not quite sure that follows.
What you’ve described about Banshee style drones above precludes anything being stored in the ship’s magazines. If you have a look at the Navy Lookout article about ammunition handling on the carriers, the lifts aren’t actually that big. I’d estimate that the biggest ones are about 7m by 4m, which is big enough for the current banshee but not for anything with a proper wingspan.
The pallets are sized for anything up to Storm Shadow size, but again not for a strike drone that outranges F35, which would surely be the minimum for a viable combat role.
So if you want to store drones below deck and move them onto the flight deck, you need to use the hangar and the aircraft lifts, which will inevitably get in the way of conventional flying ops.
I would suggest the actual Banshee is stored in the hangar. Whereas the warhead/effector is stored in the magazine. It could then be assembled together either in the hangar or on the deck.
Yes but a single use banshee like drone would have a 8 foot wingspan and is 10 foot long.. a drone of that size with an explosive warhead can and should be stacked away as a munition.. we are not talking class three large reusable multipurpose drones .. we are essentially talking about a deck launched single purpose suicide drone.. that’s a munition.
Jonathan, like I said an 8 foot wingspan is pretty marginal for the ammunition lifts.
Hopefully when they find they don’t have the money to fund everything in the SDR, this will be the first item to be cut.
A good article in the guardian today which essentially said that starmer had bound himself to the NATO 3.5% +1.5% and essentially all that was left was the general negotiations around exactly what this would mean and timetables.. apparently government is having a meeting about how to actually keep to the new NATO targets today.. essentially as I have commented a number of time the smoke and mirrors is all really not about avoiding 3% it’s about how to present 3% by 2030 and 3.5% +1.5% by the early 2030s to the public who don’t want more tax..but also want winter fuel, want child benefits for all kids, want a quicker and better NHS etc etc and are really not even convinced 3% spend on defence is a good idea.
Defensive weapons yes , as a last layer of defensive from incoming missiles, lasers ( yes). but offensive weapons when you are flying FOD sensitive aircraft , not a good idea especially when you have escorts that can do and are/ will be similarly armed.
Defensive weapons yes , as a last layer of defensive from incoming missiles, lasers ( yes). but offensive weapons when you are flying FOD sensitive aircraft , not a good idea especially when you have escorts that can do and are/ will be similarly armed.
Why was this not done when they were built, this is something you can blame the conservative government for
Are they ever going to spend more time stases than in the dockyards
Why was this not done when they were built, this is something you can blame the conservative government for
Are they ever going to spend more time stases that in the dockyards
Just throwing in my 2 cents… for context I have spent 2 years on a QE class and 18 months in the CSG battlestaff (and a few staff jobs previously working on concept and development) – doesn’t mean I am right however, just bringing a different opinion!
I don’t think it nearly as catastrophic a decision as we are perhaps making out. Firstly, this will have been processed and agreed by subject matter experts across the integrated/joint space. Not single service, not the idea of a sole staff officer. It is in line with the credible requirements to quickly and succinctly increase lethality. We need to get out of the ‘these idiots know nothing’ headspace. They do!
We need to remember that the 5th generation carriers are STRIKE carriers, not aircraft carriers. The doctrine employed is about getting effects (hard and soft) where they are needed. This is why they have a floating Embassy facility, it is why they have a cyber capability, it is why they were built with additional power generation, it is why we saw the development of the short-lived amphibious doctrine.
The F-35B provides one capability here, but whilst capable and credible, they are inherently inefficient and shouldn’t be our only option. Every minute at readiness on the deck and every minute in the air is sucking flying hours, pilot rest hours, airframe hours and ‘use by’ hours on whatever weapons are being carried. There are numerous scenarios that this is completely acceptable but there is nothing wrong with having other capabilities in your arsenal. I believe it is looking incredibly likely that procurement will stop at 48x Bs (probably with F-35As sqns or further Typhoons bought for the RAF as the priority; as an interim ahead of Tempest – potentially with nukes but that is a separate discussion). There is going to be very little resilience in the fleet and anything that can be done to efficiently conduct Strike iaw doctrine is a useful step forward. If that means launching missiles from the deck then let’s do it.
There is space, power, crew and a floating hull ready to go. If that means further developing MQ-25 and MQ-28 or developing similar capabilities, then great. The mindset of ‘we need more of what we have’ is simply not going to cut it with MilCap and the Treasury anymore. We need to demonstrate rapid development of lethal capability. We have been blessed that the ‘extended readiness’ conversation that occurred in the media early on in the SDR has passed. Defence (not the RN) made a huge commitment with the carriers we have preserved them but now need to modernise them into the integrated ‘one sensor, one decision, one effect’. If that means having an arsenal ship capability (not to mention the largest floating expeditionary magazines in defence) then great.
Only my opinion but I think we are living ‘dreadnaught’ moment, the transition from analog to digital warships and the QE class is the first of the new generation of British seapower. At the heart of it is two Strike carriers, which have huge amount of potential for rapid and meaningful lethality. Even if it means more FOD plods and a workforce redesign. Apologies for the essay, but I think this is a meaningful step forward in our ability to fight the Navy.
Thank you for your considered post and experience you bring. The QE carriers are a great asset , it’s just the long range missile idea seams to have come at short notice. We know there maybe emals in the future, drones and there is spare electrical generation for future development etc The lethal part is the F35b ‘s, the carrier can be called 5 th gen mainly because it carries 5th gen aircraft but a carrier by itself is not lethal, although f35b can quickly embark when & wherever needed. Will be watching with interest.
Hi Simon, very much agree. The capability as it exists is primarily the F35s at present, although the digital/cyber stuff, ‘flagship services’ (Both C2/C4 and defence engagement) and ability to project the RMs post-future Command Force could all be argued to be credible ‘5th gen’ capabilities (albeit the fighter terminology has been expanded from its core here). The carriers were designed to be future proof as you say; there is 18 acres of real estate and a huge powerplant that can be (by naval architecture standards) fairly easily modified… even if it means ripping out the coffee shop and boxing gym for missile silos. My apologies for lazy language, generally the purpose-built carriers designed for fifth gen aircraft are being referred to a ‘5th gen’ so the QNLZ class and the GRFord class would meet these criteria. Whereas the KAGA, or the CAVOUR who are being retrofitted to support F-35 would not. Key here is full integration of allied asset and other platforms (sensor – decider – effect as per the SDR), moving beyond joint service and allied interoperability.
I’m not entirely convinced that the long-range missile may also be something to do with Submarine numbers and availability, sovereign ability to project a range of strike capabilities without a boat may be another factor.
Hi NDG, nice post.
What do you think about the MQ9B STOL idea? If we are doing NATO, then having improved ASW from the carriers feels like a good idea especially if it doesn’t mean buying catapults and arrestor gear at enormous cost from the US.
I can’t see how launching drones from the carriers can be better than supporting F35 to carry a proper standoff weapon. Naval targets probably wouldn’t have a difficult time with Banshee-style subsonic jets or propeller drones even in a swarm of 5-10, so we might need F35’s EW to back them up anyway?
As you are clearly the SME here, please do correct me if I’ve said anything wrong!
Hi Torpedo, far from an SME but perhaps a little closer to the capability than some. I really like the MQ9B concept combined with the P8 fleet it could give great coverage across the GIUK gap from shore basing at Lossie. TThe STOL concpet is still quite imature and it is important to note that whilst we are operating MQ9s presently, they are bloody expensive. I hope (more than believe!) that we are going to see slight revolution in procurement under the NAD. There are cheaper similar capabilities available that may be equally fit for purpose. Perhaps European made/designed?
We are firmly into hypothetical mission sets (which is very much a cop-out answer) but I don’t see the development of UAVs as a replacement to the F35s. More akin to buying extra golf clubs for your bag: long range missiles, drones, F35 (with whichever weapon load out), plus resupply drones, SF ashore, AEW, Troop support via Merlin, and wider task group operations… they all add to your ability to play the game better even if you don’t use every club for every hole. No some advanced military would be comfortable knocking our numerous drone waves, we saw this with the USN, MN and RN ivo Yemen. But silos get empty quickly and we saw in the Black Sea the that a single USV getting through can do to an ‘analogue’ warship. Given all of which, the need for broader weapons sets for the F-35 needs to be part of this mix. Interesting point ref EW however, completely agree! But it if completes the mission, keeps the pilot out of enemy range (or at least reduces risk), saves airframe hours or can just saturate the picture for the F-35 to complete the task then it is all good news.
The Army is pursuing a target of 20% crewed capability, 40% attrite capability (drones that can be reused) and 40% one-way effectors (missiles, bombs, single use drones, artillery). I would be very surprised if this doesn’t become the model. I really hope we are looking at re-thinking the entire strike concept. One thing we have as a military is a long established talent for combined arms warfare, and we can’t take it for granted. There are probably only 4 or 5 countries that can actually do it, even if we are not at the scale we would like. We only hsve to look at how our allies in Ukraine struggled when trying it for the first time. I think this is hinting at the next step into a fully integrated (and multinational) force. It’s exciting times and could result in some huge changes to our ways of operating.
Anyone who has operated the piece of equipment under discussion is a subject matter expert in my book!
So is your idea to have a sort of Pick’n’Mix carrier, with a system available for every occasion? It makes sense just from a strike perspective, but what about peer conflicts? You might need all of the F35s you can get into the air, and having the hangar filled with loads of different types of support drones won’t help. We don’t have the luxury like the US do of bottomless hangar decks.
Hi NDG, welcome to the UKDJ. Cheers for the objective view from someone who has served on the “new” carriers from one who was attached to the old carriers (Lusty and Ark). But, I would suggest that the Strike carrier concept must and with all seriousness, get its foundations correct before chasing rainbows. In that, I mean with the F35B being the primary strike asset of the carrier, it must first be exploited for its capability and in particular its mass. Rather than looking for the next best thing or trying to solve the problem “on the cheap”! In the services we have a habit of chasing the next technological marvel, rather than developing what we already have. Within the Strike Carrier concept, I would suggest that the carrier air wing (CAW) is the first priority for development and where most of the funds should go. In that making sure our F35Bs get Meteor, Spear-3 and perhaps JSM in the interim whilst waiting on FCASW. Which will give it a much more effective punch in both air combat and strike missions against maritime and land based targets. But the CAW must also have its force multipliers so it can function at the highest capability by projecting air power. Therefore the CAW must have an effective AEW (not some mickey mouse MQ-9 solution) platform, an organic air tanker platform, along with a longer ranged/duration maritime surveillance/ASW capability. It’s the first two I would see as an absolute priority, everything else is just a distraction until they have been acquired.
Without these two assets, the F35B is hamstrung in its offensive and defensive capabilities. History has continually shown that without AEW, a ship is vulnerable to low level air attacks. Primarily due to the lack of time to enact an effective response. With today’s threats this has got worse not better for a ship. Even the current T45, will struggle if swarmed by a multi-layered attack. AEW gives you the extended horizon, thereby giving the ship a lot more time to plan an effective defence or even dare I say it, go offensive! Similarly, the air tanker will not only help extend the range an F35B can go, but also increase its on-station time, when conducting combat air patrols (CAPs). Which thereby effectively pushes out the defensive umbrella of the carrier group.
Sadly, I don’t see it happening. There has been a distinct lack of impetus, including rumours or mutterings following the MoD’s release of the CATOBAR RFI and the announcement of project Ark Royal. These two should have garnered industry’s appetite for developing the ship’s future capabilities. But also to develop the CAW. This part was sadly missed from the 2025 SDR, instead stating that the RN must look at a high-low mix of a hybrid air wing, which I get. As it’s very unlikely that we could afford a small number of E2D Hawkeyes, that CATOBAR through the RFI might have allowed. There are uncrewed options on the horizon, but even these such as Boeing’s MQ-25 Stingray may be too expensive, plus it requires CATOBAR to operate from a carrier along with an angled deck for landing.
The trial on HMS Prince of Wales in 2023, using the General Atomics (GA) MQ-1C Mojave uncrewed air system (UAS) equipped with a STOL wing, has shown what is possible with an UAS, by landing on the carrier’s deck without the need for CATOBAR. Especially as GA have now shown a model of a marinized STOL version of their MQ-9B, complete with folding wings. However, to bring reality back in to the room for a moment. It must not be expected that a AEW version of the MQ-9 could compete with the radar performance delivered by platforms such as the E2D, E7 or even the Globaleye. At best it would provide a slightly better range detection performance than the Merlin equipped with Crowsnest. I’m not doubting it would provide a significantly better on-station time than a Merlin. But it is vitally important that people understand the realistic capabilities/limitations a MQ-9 equipped with an X-band radar is capable of. Especially as it won’t be able to carry a longer wavelength radar that the other AEW platforms carry. Whereas, it would significantly boost the maritime surveillance and possible anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability, the carrier can provide. There is still a possible platform that could be used for AEW that doesn’t require the carrier to be modified. Which might also be able to carry an S-band radar along with a X-band radar. This would be a development of the Bell V280 Valor. Following the the win for the US Army’s Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA). Bell have been giving the USMC a sales pitch for a marinized Valor to replace their UH-1Y Venoms. The range and endurance would not compete with the MQ-9, but it still better than a Merlin’s. It has the size and electrical generating capability to power a S-band radar and possibly a look down horizon scanning X-band radar. Could this aircraft be a future AEW platform for our carriers?
In some respects I am bemused with the SDR’s statement: “Plans for the hybrid carrier airwings should also include long-range precision missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck.” As initially this smacks of the MoD not having the funds to properly equip the F35B and using a soon to be in-service solution to deliver the capability. A few years back in 2017 a USMC HIMARS was used off the deck of the USS Anchorage LPD. The HIMARS managed to hit a designated target over 70km away. If we take the SDRs statement as literal, then are we looking at using the M270 MLRS in a similar way? Especially as the Army have announced that the M270 will be getting the precision strike missile (PrSM) as part of their Land Deep Fires Program (LDFP). This will give the Royal Artillery the ability to hit targets over 500km away with a 200lbs effects. However, if this is the case, the carrier and its support group will need to be closer to land, for this to be effective, especially if the target is well inland. Which therefore places the group at a greater risk. Before we shelved Albion and Bulwark, I would have said strapping a M270 to their flight deck would have been a good idea. As it would provide amphibious forces a great deal of immediate fire support. However, strapping it to the deck of our carriers, smacks of a sticking plaster trying to solve F35Bs current lack of stand-off capability. There’s also the option of the the 2000km range plus weapon that the UK and Germany are now signed up to develop. Which could be either a ballistic missile or a cruise missile. But due to the range requirement, it won’t be small. But as this is literally at the pre-concept phase, we would be looking at it being in-service perhaps in 10 to 15 years time, is this too long, do we need something right now? Which kind of points back to the M270 and PrSM.
For me, the F35B is currently the best asset for the carriers. However, we must have the appropriate numbers to field a full CAW of a minimum of 24 jets, on any one deployed carrier. Where if it goes hot, a third Squadron of another 12 jets can then be sent and embarked. In addition to this, the RAF must still have a F35 capability. As the F35 is best placed for Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD)/Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (DEAD), but also the longer ranged interdiction requirement compared with the Typhoon. Which means they need at least two full time Squadron of jets. Therefore we would require 60 jets to be available for front line and carrier work. Which does not include OCU and maintenance schedule requirements, which could be another 12 jets, making a requirement for 72 jets. Unless, the RAF do go down the F35A route giving us a split of As and Bs, which seems more likely now given it’s stated in the SDR. But the Navy would still need at least 48 F35B jets to cover the deployment of a single carrier with a 2 Squadron air wing, along with a reinforcement jets, an OCU and covering the maintenance cycle. I guess this would mean both carriers couldn’t be operational at the same time, until the loyal wingman becomes available.
The SDR statement of a high-low mix, would suggest something along the lines of further development of the Banshee, as it has been very successful as a one way suicide drone in the Ukraine War. But the SDR did also hint at a UAS to support the F35 in the form of “autonomous collaborative platforms” or did it?. Which I’d like to think kind of hints at something along the lines of the then Future Maritime Aviation Force (FAMF) and the Vixen program. But for that to happen the carriers would need modifying with an angled deck along with CATOBAR. Which the SDR does not say, so perhaps we may be looking at a MQ-9 STOL variant. It is tantalising to think the ships could operate something like the MQ-28 Ghost Bat, which Boeing have presented in art work lifting off one of our carriers and the USN are now looking at. But I have a feeling it is going to a long time before we see the carriers modified for this type of aircraft.
The SDR gives a lot of top level requirements, however it also misses a lot out. So we will have to wait and see what comes with the following command paper.
Hi DB, nice to see you back doing long posts!
I’m still not sure about the AEW- If there’s one fault the Bell tiltrotors are known for, it’s being expensive and unreliable. Both could be catastrophic for us.
I wouldn’t be too mad about MQ9B so long as there are enough to maintain at least 2 on patrol, which should be easier than with Merlin. I wonder if the jet-powered Avenger has potential with blown flaps and redesigned wings? That seems to have several times the spare power available on a similarly sized airframe, as well as internal payload capacity.
The romantic (and theoretically ideal) solution is Airlander but that brings a whole host of challenges that would be fun but expensive to solve.
How important actually is AAR? I get that F35B doesn’t have a stellar combat radius, but given the amount of money the USN is shovelling into MQ25 for very little progress, isn’t it a very long term ideal for the RN?
But the aircraft carrier provides such a big target whch must be very vulnerable in terms of todays warfare?
Possibly, but before it is, you have to get through the various layers of defence, i.e. F35, Aster, CAMM etc.
Apparently the new Russian intermediate ballistic Oreschnik missile with say a tactical nuclear warhead can travel at Mach 10 and is impossible to stop. Trading just one missile for an aircraft carrier with all its bells and whistles appears pretty cost effective.
I would take the capabilities of Oreshnik with a pinch of salt. If a carrier is part of a group that includes the T45 or an Arleigh Burke (AB) Batch 2 or 3. There is a very good chance the missile will be intercepted on its terminal path to the carrier. Presuming the Oreshnik has any form of guidance, which according to Ukraine it does not. Means the carrier group could turn and speed away from the predicted impact site. Even if the missile is carrying a nuke. The group should be able to steer away from it at full speed lessening the destructive forces.
Even if the carrier group does not steer away. The ballistic path to the carrier is easily predicted. Both types of ship have the radar (Sampson and S1850M on the T45 along with SPY-1D/SPY-6 on the ABs) to detect and track the missile and its 6 multiple independent targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) once they’ve separated.
The ships combat management systems (CMS) should be able to work out an intercept solution. Where Aster and SM2, SM3 and SM6 should then be able to intercept the missile as it falls towards the carrier, even if the missile is travelling at Mach 5 or so. Remember the purported Mach 10 speed is its terminal velocity when travelling through the upper atmosphere, not the speed it hits the ground with. After it re-enters denser atmosphere, the drag that’s generated will progressively slow it down. According to Ukraine the MIRVs hit the ground at speeds significantly less than Mach 5. The AB would launch a SM3 to intercept the Orishnik at its apogee in the upper atmosphere, followed up by a SM6 when it gets closer to 100,000ft. Both Aster and SM2 would be used when it reaches about 60,000ft.
Very interesting.
But wouldn’t an airburst weapon cripple most of the aircraft carriers defences at a stroke?
I’m betting on a standoff loitering munition, it could be useful to build up a cloud (yes I am avoiding the term ‘swarm’) of them a few at a time and then send them off at once.
Or perhaps we’ll see more of CAsMM.