A UK F-35B Lightning jet has landed on a Japanese vessel for the first time during the UK Carrier Strike Group’s Indo-Pacific deployment.
The UK Carrier Strike Group, led by HMS Prince of Wales, confirmed the event in a statement on social media, writing: “There’s a first for everything… The 1st 🇬🇧 F-35B jet lands on a Japanese ship.”
The landing took place during Operation Highmast, the UK’s seven-month Indo-Pacific mission. This week’s joint operations will see aircraft and crews from both countries exercising side by side at sea.
There’s a first for everything…
The 1st 🇬🇧 F-35B jet lands on a Japanese ship. #OpHighmast #CSG25 pic.twitter.com/87Y0vICdu8
— UK Carrier Strike Group (@COMUKCSG) August 9, 2025
Once concluded, the UK Carrier Strike Group will divide its forces. Certain elements will proceed to South Korea to take part in further bilateral activities, while HMS Prince of Wales and her escorts are scheduled to continue north-westward to Japan for the next stage of their programme.
The Royal Navy and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) have, in recent years, made steady progress in developing their ability to operate together in the air and maritime domains.
Japan has also taken major steps to enhance its own capabilities in this area. Its Izumo-class helicopter carriers have been extensively modified to operate the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing aircraft. The conversion work has included reinforcing the ship’s structure and applying heat-resistant deck coatings designed to withstand the intense downward thrust generated during vertical landings. For both nations, the work undertaken alongside the UK Carrier Strike Group provides a practical and strategically valuable means of improving Japan’s ability to project credible maritime air power.
Funny how navies with far larger escort fleets put SAMs on their carriers while we bend over backwards to explain why we can’t do so for technical reasons(debris on fight deck). Izumo-class DDH here have a SeaRam in front of the island/bridge.
I’m not sure I’ve heard that as an excuse from an official source. It’s very common on such places as this tho. BS of course.
Because we have the most experience of doing it for real. And the investment has gone into our T45’s Which is the best tool for the job for fleet defence. And the carriers primary weapon systems. Aircraft. We took Sea Dart off the Invincible class to make room for more aircraft.
Which occurred in a period of relative benign threat situations for Western ships and to make up for the fact that the Invincibles were small ships never intended for the Strike role they ended up doing.
The RN removed its AAW missile systems from its carriers after learning from the largest hot navel campaign of the late 20c
You are so so very wrong. In an full scale war you would do anything to defend your carriers. Its more petty mindedness excuses which we Brits do very well to save a few pennies.
Have you ever seen the British Pacific Fleet in action against Kamikaze’s in 1944-45? Suggest you have a look! 4.5″ batteries ( 8 twin turrets per carrier) blasting away till the barrels pealed paint. Same with all types of 40mm. I heard this all first hand and we can see how desperate it was on YouTube.
The Japanese Carriers have 4 CIWS one on each corner. The QE’s just 3 hoping that threadbare minimum will do. I suppose we hope we can drop into the USA and bludge a few from them if the balloon goes up.
T45’s were never enough. We said we needed 12 which was then reduced to 8 and then to 6.
We now have 8 Frigates. We built 16 T23. What happened? We sold 3 to Chile leaving us with 13. What remained? They were over worked needed massive refits costing a fortune and never replaced until we start in 2027/28 if all is well.
I never know how those in the know can sleep at night.
fairly sure, it’s more because of bean counters than any technical reasons
Not really, the Invincibles had a Sea Dart launcher as built and the RN spent a fair amount of cash removing them from the carriers to replace them with extra deck parking space.
How much of that was a combination of trying to maximise Harrier operations from the Invincibles for a “Strike” role they weren’t really intended for, and how much of that was down to the relatively benign threat environment for Western navies post Cold War 1? From memory didn’t some of the other options for the CVF have some missile defence capability?
Just going to point out that the Sea Darts where removed after the RN’s experience in the rather non-benign waters off the Falklands and leave it at that.
who is talking about Invincible class?
plenty of room on QE class ie 65k tons vs 22k tons
Yes but every square foot is taken up by F35’s. 👀
I take it providing context is a bit beyond your grasp? Or are you just upset that the context shows that there is a thought process behind not having SAM systems on the QE’s beyond “money”?
Funny how the RN actually removed a AAW system from its carriers..because after actually being the only nation to engage in a full fleet action for a long time, the RN decided it got in the way of fast jet operations.
*Japanese Destroyer.
Very clearly a destroyer, come on.
Ah but, was it deliberate or did it get lost ?
“anyone fancy an Indian ? nah, lets have a Japanese tonight”.
#day 1
Sorry but for me it’s a no brainer to maximise defensive capabilities on every ship
Kaga ?
You haven’t heard of the layered air defence system then? And very well thought out and praticed tactics. Any enemy would have a very hard time even finding a carrier let alone targeting, tracking and engaging one. All the while trying to evade the most capable networked air defence system ever to put to sea. And 5th gen air power. As an ex-Matelot, I’d feel very safe onboard a QE class carrier.