The Ministry of Defence has indicated that it remains open to potentially retrofitting the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers with catapults, depending on future operational requirements.
This follows a parliamentary question from Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, who inquired about the possibility of converting the UK’s two aircraft carriers to CATOBAR configuration.
Defence Minister Maria Eagle clarified that while the carriers currently operate the F-35B Lightning fighter aircraft, which does not require catapults or arrestor systems, future advancements in naval aviation might necessitate such modifications.
“The Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers operate the F-35B Lightning fighter aircraft, which does not require Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment. The Royal Navy’s Maritime Aviation Transformation Strategy will expand the deployment of uncrewed air systems in Royal Navy ships, including the aircraft carriers,” said Eagle.
This is not the first time that the issue of converting the UK’s carriers has been raised. In 2024, when James Cartlidge was serving as Minister of State for Defence, he addressed similar questions from Conservative MP Damien Moore. Cartlidge highlighted that the carriers were designed with the potential for future modifications, stating:
“The Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers (QEC) were built to allow for capability changes over the lifetime of these ships. The Royal Navy is committed to developing capabilities that will allow it to build combat mass, whilst remaining at the forefront of technology, and this includes a strong focus on uncrewed air systems.”
Cartlidge further explained that the Royal Navy was conducting a detailed analysis to explore the operation of a wider range of aircraft from the carriers. This included considering launch and recovery systems, particularly after successful trials of the Mojave and Windracer uncrewed systems.
“As such, the aviation capabilities of the QEC aircraft carriers will continue to evolve in the coming years and the operation of a wider variety of aircraft is being considered as part of a detailed analysis to scope and assess options. The launch and recovery systems for these new capabilities is currently under review, following the recent successful trials of Mojave and Windracer,” he added.
Adding to this context, recent trials have showcased the increasing integration of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) with the Royal Navy’s carrier operations. Recently, the Royal Navy conducted a groundbreaking trial with the largest uncrewed aircraft ever launched from a Royal Navy carrier.
Codenamed ‘Mojave’, the aircraft was remotely piloted from a computer terminal and successfully took off and landed on HMS Prince of Wales off the East Coast of the USA. The aircraft, measuring nine metres long with a 17-metre wingspan, is significantly larger than the F-35B Lightning.
The trial, conducted off the coast of Virginia, marked the first time a crewless aircraft of this size has been operated from a non-US Navy carrier, demonstrating how uncrewed systems could work alongside fifth-generation fighters.
The Ministry of Defence remains cautious yet open to innovation. Eagle said that any decision regarding carrier modifications would be carefully considered within the context of the Strategic Defence Review.
“The Strategic Defence Review will consider opportunities for modernisation and transformation, and greater productivity, including through the rapid and consistent application of Digital Age technologies.
As new technologies develop, it is possible that some uncrewed systems would require specific Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment. Should this become the case, balance of investment decisions would be made to ensure that the Royal Navy is optimised to gain the most benefit from uncrewed systems,” Eagle stated.
While no definitive commitment has been made to retrofit the carriers with catapults and arrestor gear, the Ministry’s response indicates that the possibility remains on the table. The evolving landscape of naval aviation, particularly the integration of uncrewed systems, will likely shape future decisions on carrier upgrades.
Could Tempest be a candidate? There is development time to make the airframe capable, one would think? Before the OSD these two vessels will undergo several refits as technology expands using remote unmanned systems and who knows 95% of aircraft on board could be unmanned by 2050?
Are you proposing making Tempest SToVL capable?
If so, that would be suicide for the GCAP, quite frankly. Neither Japan nor Italy have expressed any desire for that capability. It would be expensive, time-consuming, performance-limiting and quite frankly wasteful when considering that the F-35B is currently the second-most capable carrier-borne fighter currently in service and is likely to remain similarly dominant in the near future against all but one potential opponent: China.
I suspect he means if Cats and Traps were fitted. Either way it’s just not going to happen the Tempest is likely to be near F111 size and it would be easier and far cheaper and practical to go for F-35C with only a relatively negligible disparity in ability.
Not sure what you are suggesting here …That Tempest will only have a negligible increase in capability over F35C? Or that F35C only has a negligible increase in capability over the F35B?
Having the capability does not mean permanently stationing on the carriers and folding wings would be part of the specifications.
Its an interesting question. Maybe the Japanese would take the lead on this being Pacifico-centric.
The area of strike intervention of a Tempest-carrier would be eye wateringly large. That range and payload would give a huge advantage if you think about it.
No! Making it capable of taking off with ‘cats’, this might require an angled deck similar to the Ford class. As I suggested, the QE Class will no doubt undergo many physical changes during their lifespan. A ship-launched version would have to be developed for Tempest, but in combination with F-35B would make for a formidable capability. Any such development would probably come after RAF deliveries.
Purchase 50 F335C and let the FAA operate them and give the F35B to the RAF.
A discussion about launch and recovery systems, and the only aircraft mentioned don’t need any?
Just buy MQ9B STOL already, for a truly useful NATO carrier group!
They’ll probably bottle it and use existing Protector.
This government have bought zilch of note so far.
I don’t think the Protector we have now can be converted for carrier duties.
They could be converted into MPAs, and I think that would be a good idea, but I think you have to build the drones so that the wings can be swapped out.
The GA-ASI slideshow I’ve seen implied that the STOL airframe is based off the modifications we have made to our own Protectors, so a further order ought to be hassle-free from a design point of view.
Ah OK.
Hope then!
Yes I thought it was simply a wing kit that GA were offering that would allow MQ9 B to operate in STOL mode from a carrier.
Along with JPALS so that they can land automatically on the carriers.
I don’t know what the wing root attachments are like, it may be that you can retrofit the STOL kits.
I don’t understand why they aren’t already testing out MQ9B STOL. It must be a prime candidate for a number of carrier-borne roles, including a possible replacement for the Merlin CROWSNEST, long-range surveillance and deploying sonobuoys over a wide area. I’m sure someone is going to point out the problems of landing one safely in adverse weather with other aircraft on deck, but that’s what trials are for.
We were first in testing! then nothing. Mojave should be on board by now, get GA to make them in the UK as well. Never seem to be able to pull the trigger and commit – it is always “research”. Why is shipborne rolling vertical landing not standard by now we first tested it in 2018! Same for S100s on all of our escorts to give us further sensor reach etc etc.
They’ve just (this week) started wind tunnel testing on Protector with the STOL wing and tail kit, so progress is being made.
Mojave was never going to be operational from ships, it was simply to test the unarrested landings. UK production would be great, but unlikely as the US buy the vast majority of GA-ASI’s products.
Worth noting as well that the MoD just put out a request to industry on COTS drone capability to provide AEW. This is all pretty new.
Yes, we discussed the new AEW options and the MoD RFI quite extensively on another forum.
Consensus was that Protector is the clear frontrunner, albeit flawed, but Airlander is the novelty option with some important advantages.
We’re not testing it because it doesn’t actually exist yet. They’ve only just started doing wind model testing of the MQ-9B STOL kit in the US. Mojave STOL, which was tested on PWLS, is based off a Grey Eagle airframe, which in itself is based on Predator which is smaller than Reaper, let alone Protector. It was a proof of concept that will now be applied to both the mid-sized MQ-9 Reaper and the bigger MQ-9B Protector.
Ah, I didn’t realise – I assumed they had already had a working prototype. How naive of me.
Never happen.
We are skint
Yet again we see the fantastic adaptability of these incredible Carriers, has anyone ever wondered if C&T’s could have been fitted originally ?
“Jeese I crack myself up”.
Britain is sinking under the weight of unread ‘Strategic Defence Reviews.’
What is needed is a tactical review of how Britain will win a fight battles on its own. And if the aircraft carriers are not part of that plan, get rid. If they need catapults get them.
The 1990s are long over. We are back to a world where the weak and timid get attacked by enemies or dominated by ‘friends.’
If we are buying a ‘suitable’ STOL airframe then why the Cats and Traps? My understanding is that there is a STOL kit that General Atomics are offering that would not require any modifications to the QEC, although I vaguely remember some talk about issues with the drone sharing the flight deck with the F-35 during flying operations? Even so, given the expense of cats and traps relying on EMALS tech then surely the main driver for Cats and Traps is high performance loyal wingmen drones for the F-35B and they are apparently some way off as yet.
I read a headline on a US website (The War Zone, possibly) that said the biggest problem with loyal wingmen drones was that they still had a tendency to fly into the crewed aircraft in close formation! (I didn’t get read the article). The picture on the article showed the F-35 flying aft of the drone, so I guess there may yet be serious issues to be sorted with the not so intelligent AI pilots. In which case there is currently limited requirement for cats and traps at the moment so I don’t expect any decisions about drones or cats and traps for QEC given the caution that MoD is applying to big procurement decisions.
Cheers CR
The US marines are reducing their buy from 353 to 280 for reliability issues. Regardless of these reliability issues, this will increase the unit cost of the F-35B. This will change the econimics of the F-35B for the UK. This in turn will also alter the cost calaculations of installing emal catapult system.
Surely it makes sense to accept the decision not to install a catapult on the QE carriers was wrong. And before any more money is spent on a “dead end” policy, instal cats ASAP. The one redeeming factor I believe is the carriers have a “fitted for not with” design to accept catapults.
Unfortunately I believe that belief is incorrect. My understanding is the original design requirement -post F35B decision – was to allow for retro fitting of CATS for aircraft. However at some point in the design cycle that particular requirement was ‘missed’ and subsequent designs did not allow for CATS to be retro fitted. But I could be wrong as it was a very convoluted project.
Nothing to do with reliability. Reassessed operational needs led to a switch of some planned Bs to Cs. Remember, they will operate off two different types of ships- Bs from the assault ships, Cs from the carriers. Only the USN is buying the F35C. It is likely there will be further users of F35B as other countries seek to have seaborne airpower at an affordable ( relatively) cost.
Clearly the correct thing to do would be to make sure the Tempest was carrier capable from entry to service. The French have had a huge success with the Rafale by making sure it can operate from carriers. Making the Tempest carrier capable by design will maximise the return on the UK’s investment just as the French have found with the Rafale. It is about time the UK defence establishment admitted the whole F35/QE carrier program has been a fiasco largely due to the insistence on the F35b (or C) as the aircraft of choice. Cut the losses, get a few Sea Harriers back on deck to keep the RN familiar with fixed wing operations whilst developing the Tempest to be carrier capable and fitting CATS and TRAPS on the two carriers with the necessary extra MT30 gas turbine for more power and speed. Stop messing about. Consider cutting RAF strike to pay for the naval Tempest. And use a few reconditioned Buccaneers to keep the RN trained in CAT and TRAP operations before the naval Tempest enters service. Grow a pair!
The carriers need CATOBAR configuration. We can be rid of Crows Nest and carryout in flight refuelling adding essential range on the F35. The Royal Navy could then launch Loyal Wingman too. It would turn two limited ability carriers into something akin to what the Americans have from an air wing P.O.V.
Does anyone know if Tempest would be able to be carrier-capable?