The UK government has confirmed there are no plans to fit 30mm naval guns to HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales, despite growing concern over drone threats to warships.

Responding to a written question from Lord Lee of Trafford, Defence Minister Lord Coaker said the carriers already rely on a layered defence approach.

“There are no plans to fit a 30mm weapon system to HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales,” he said. “The Queen Elizabeth Class carriers are equipped with a range of defensive systems, which along with escort vessels and wider force protection measures, provide a layered defensive system that is effective against a wide range of threats, including emerging uncrewed aerial threats.”

The decision comes despite the carriers having been designed with four positions for 30mm gun systems, none of which have been installed since the ships entered service.

The DS30M Mark 2, widely used across the Royal Navy’s surface fleet, is a stabilised 30mm cannon system designed to counter fast attack craft and small surface threats, and has also been adapted in some cases to engage aerial targets such as drones.

Preview image for asset

The system uses an electro-optical director and can be controlled from elsewhere on the ship, allowing operators to track and engage targets without direct line-of-sight from the mount itself. Its stabilisation and dual-feed ammunition system enable engagement of multiple target types at ranges of up to around 5km, with the ability to switch between ammunition types depending on the threat.

Originally introduced to address gaps in the Royal Navy’s ability to deal with swarming small boat attacks, the system has since become a standard close-range defensive weapon across surface combatants, complementing other systems such as Phalanx close-in weapon systems and escort-based air defence.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
X

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

115 COMMENTS

  1. Why rule it out? The mounts are there and we presumably have spare guns taken off retired T23s. Presumably a more precisely worded question like ‘in what circumstances would the Royal Navy equip the 30mm ASCG guns that the aircraft carriers are fitted for, given etc etc’ might have received a more sensible answer.
    Unless it means they are upgrading to 40mm…

      • I would assume if anything is fitted it would be dragon fire so there not going to waste time and money at a time when there not necessarily needed it’s the same with cats both are designed to be retrofitted for cats but with the threats we face at the moment there not really needed.

        • Course it’s needed, cats and traps aren’t a case of needing either it’s we won’t pay for them and there isn’t the room

          • There really not needed at the moment if anything gets through from the threats we face a 30 mm is highly unlikely to be able to stop what the destroyers and aircraft on board couldn’t
            As for cats the space was kept empty for them it will take a large refit but it’s there if it’s needed.
            More importantly they need to replace the problematic couplings that keep failing with something more reliable and ideally produced in the UK and not the US to keep repair times down solving reliability issues should be top of the list followed by more destroyers and frigates a few 30 mm guns is pretty low on the list of what the navy needs

            • Bruh are you seriously trying to suggest fitting some 30mm is equivalent to the issue of the decimation of the escort fleet…..

              One is far cheaper than the other, guess which

              • You don’t operate a carrier like a big Destroyer. If a carrier, any carrier has to use its close in weapon systems then your escorts are all likely at the bottom of thr ocean and something has very seriously gone wrong. Aircraft are the primary weapons. Leave the escorts to do there job. They the best tools for the job.

                • Putting extra DEFENSIVE armament on it makes it a destroyer? Seriously look at other countries then try to justify this decision.

                  • Just seen this. I’m with you Hugo. Unbelievable thickery in this simple and sensible 30mm upgrade. Even a pair of 40mm might do the trick plus Ancilia. Regardless of escorts its this “extra extra” defence which as you say other navies seem to get. It’s a bewildering attitude considering the current drone infested environment. I’d like to see the Rapid Sentry LMM system adapted for naval use considering the widespread use of RAM.

                • And none of them have used them.The RN have the most experience. We took Sea Dart off the Invincible class to make more room for aircraft. The carrier’s are not used in a operational environment were a drone us going to get close or an aircraft for that matter. It’s not like the movies kid.

                  • It’s money money money plus of course civil servants who have no interest in the Royal Navy as they are only passing through

                    • That why we have a layered air defence system. Building the air picture across hundreds of miles so any threat can be tracked and engaged

                  • If you’d been with our carriers in the Pacific Fleet in 1945 you would disagree. Several Kamikazes got through a layered defence and the Carriers 4.5″ were kept very busy with some struck, people killed and a/c written off.
                    I’d be a lot happier with 4 x 30mm rather than nothing.

                  • A few guns does not better protect carrier’s. Layered air defence covering hundreds of miles does. People just do not fundamentally understand how carrier’s are operated.

                    • A few guns? please go see the fitment of other carriers, its a lot more than ‘ a few guns ‘

                    • @Jay. I know what they are fitted with. And they will never use them. Nothing moves within 500miles of a carrier group without them knowing about it. You don’t just creep up on a carrier an fire off some drones or missiles. Warefare at sea does not work that way. The US Navy have a carrier in the Gulf, and in the Red Sea. They will never have fired their close in weapon systems.

                    • Replying here to your reply to Jay.
                      I wonder if a couple of Buccaneers could sneak up on the CBG..

                    • Hi Robert,

                      If carriers are never going to use their CIWS, then why did we add Phalanx to the QE’s? Why bother?

                    • You are wrong, plain and simple. We’d have to come to 400 miles to attack our opponents. We have poor AEW, a few rusty Frigates and maybe one T45. You call that layered defence. maybe in your dreams.

                    • Leakers.
                      Transiting Suez.
                      Escorting frigate being swamped / distracted

                      Every other Navy has guns on their carriers. Given that we own the guns what is the cost of installation? vs The cost of failure.

                    • @SD67 The carrier’s creat a recognised air picture from radar and sensors across the carrier strike group. The know every threat and what direction it will come from for hundreds of miles. The escorts have the guns and the missiles and the training and the tactics to deal with any threat. F35s and AEW can cover huge amounts of airspace all secure data linked together sharing the air picture across multiple assets. It’s the single most capable air defence system that can put to sea. If the carrier has to use a 30mm. Then everyone is already screwed. The US Navy carrier sat in the Gulf will not have used any close in weapon systems, and it sat in a very high threat zone. Trust that the Navy is really rather good at fleet defence, and doesn’t need advice from people online who have never set foot on a carrier.

                    • Its the exact same defensive armaments fit as HMS Ocean. It’s not asking much but it’s protecting much more.

                    • I wish I shared your optimism. They don’t have datalink with each other in the task group and Never Underestimate your enemy!
                      They have very short range AEW compared to the USN. Moreover they have No standoff weapon to strike back on the enemy after 10 years.
                      The carriers are hardly fit for purpose.
                      I went on board HMS Hermes when she was our only Carrier!

    • The most likely upgrade path is Dragonfire as QEC’s have plenty of electricity and space for more DGUs if needed.

      • I could imagine a pair of super-Dragonfire especially as the power generation won’t be required for CATOBAR the way things are going. But that would be out well past 2030 whereas we could have four 40mm mounts on by the end of PoW’s next refit and then QE when she comes around again.

        • Was the *installed* Power Generation ever fully sized for CATOBAR? I don’t think so. I think the two MT30’s and DGUs do have plenty of spare capacity and there is plenty of space for more DGUs.

          EMALS was always going to need battery or capacitor storage systems.

          • IIRC there was some spare left over just in case, but obviously not enough for full EMALS. Wikipedia says they have 118MW of installed power but the motors can only deliver 80MW to the propellers. No idea what the system power of the rest of the ship is but there should be enough for some pretty big lasers.

            • As with anything mechanical you don’t run it flat out. There is a sweet spot for fuel use and service life.

              I’d say that was about right as you’d expect to run the power system at max 80% for the drive motors. Even GTs get pretty inefficient run flat out.

              • It’s hard to say for MT30, RR’s brochure says it can run ‘down to’ 25MW so its happy place is probably 30MW out of a maximum 40. Even if they’re running the DGs at 50% that’s still the full 80MW so they can run the ship flat out with the generators just chilling if they turn the lights off!

              • How do you store energy for a DEW, I’m guessing you can’t have them just in Batteries and then they recharge slowly over the next few hours.

                • Ship’s energy production is measured in tens of megawatts, whereas the lasers require tens of kilowatts. Why would you need long duration battery storage?

                • The DragonFire uses a mechanical flywheel. That is one of the reasons why it is drum shaped. A lot of these DEWs use such a system.

              • It seems to me that any situation where your CWIS is actively firing is a situation where it is entirely reasonable to run the mechanical systems flat-out.

            • The NL article on PANG states that EMALS requires 30MW with propulsion at 80MW. Leaving about 20MW for hotel load.

    • Do you think that the forward starboard mount position on the carriers looks like it could have a firing line conflict with the Phalanx as its arc looks a bit limited there?

      • That arc would also be covered by the starboard quarter mount which can fire a long way forwards, if fitted. The main problem at the moment is that the starboard quarter itself has a big gap at short range between the port quarter phalanx and the starboard bow one.

        • Yes, i wondered that myself. If the front of the front on area was coveted by the Phalanx’s. Maybe thrust need to keep it as a clear channel for ops so no risk of shooting anything down? If that’s not the issue could they bring the Phalanx up onto the deck in that corner where the gpmg mount is? That would then free up the area for potentially 1-2 mk41s/ExLS or even a sizeable CAMM/CAMM-ER farm. Better not tell Lord Coaker of our suggestions…LOL

    • All the Hunts and Sandowns had the 30ts as well Local and ops room aimed .Fair enough the CRWS 30mm Phalanx higher rate of fire ,but the single barrel 30mm quicker too reload .

    • To fit the guns might offend someone, and we know the government doesn’t like anyone getting offended.
      Hopefully they are well insured, and they can make a claim for some compensation when they get hit by some drones

  2. Why would you equip your capital ships with as much protection as possible? This is the British MOD they are talking about…….anyway, according to Trump, it’s only a toy navy. The people who make these stupid decisions will never sail on these vessels and simply fly a desk in Whitehall.

  4. we are governed by idiots! where do we get these clowns? if there’s one thing the Falklands taught the RN – it was don’t skip on air defence and don’t rely on others.

        • The State Pension is not a benefit since employees pay National Insurance contributions to government for their future pension and health needs.

          Welfare is something else..

            • Self serving nonsense from HM Treasury because they have chosen to pay state pensions from the current account not an investment fund.

              Employee National Insurance contributions are their investment in future state pension entitlement with 35 years contribution required for the full pension. Not in any rational way a Benefit like welfare payments but employees getting paid their own money back because they worked for it over many years.

      • There are scores sitting in warehouses doing squat all. I’m sure its because they dont want anyone crazy shooting up the dockyard or a nice friendly NATO vessel. Must be It; cant be money we bought them already. Maybe they need to be more worried than the existing two wars rageing or its too sensible.

    • Absolutely agree, can’t rely on carrier escort ships, we’re spread so thin & the carriers are a very big target, despite what the Orange Buffoon says!

      • Increased buffoonary only encourages aggressors to want publicity for capital ship damage.

        The subtext is western arrogance shown to be false and ships not so powerful…

        Lost deterrent value is why Fitted For But Not With is a long term error..

    • Weak excuse. Considering the shear size of the carriers, their high value assets, systems, people being put on these carriers and more to come a proportionate increase in self defensive armament is surely just sensible. The 4x30mm, with the 3 Phalanx’s same as was on HMS Ocean, has got to be the cheapest of any options. It feels really pathetic as it is worrying. If Ancilia and Dragonfire are in the future mix we’ll just have to wait.

  6. Escort based air defence? If only.
    No other aircraft carriers have so little onboard air defence. US, France, Italy, China, India all fit missile and gun systems.

  7. Seems very short-sighted even short-ranged thinking. What about a pair of 40mm to complement the three Phalanx’s, is that too sensible too? What about a navalised version of Rapid Sentry considering how widespread RAM has been adopted? Even the Ancilia launcher? Have they even looked at our allies carriers, including the upcoming French PA-NG? Any talk of 3-4 Dragonfire? You can’t always rely on escorts to be in the right place at the right time all the time as they’ve got to defend themselves too. High level stupidity at its finest.

    • The PANG “ upcoming “ . That’s a bit of a stretch . We have no idea what weapon systems it will have if it ever sees the light of day . All the systems discussed on this thread would have been superseded by then in any case .

      • Okay, yes, true, its still a long way off but the there
        are lots of indicative images and models of the new PA-NG carrier pn many sites which is wasted comment was based on.

        • All your points were valid . But my experience with french is their reliance and mastery , to a certain extent , of propaganda. They do not indulge in the self flagellation on naval matters as we see on this site and others about the state of the RN ..They have similar problems . Not least with the Suffren class , 7 years behind schedule as is every follow on boat. One old Rubis class ( Perle)being welded to another retired boat ( Saphir) after catching fire in dry dock. A Frankenstein SSN. A woeful lack of escorts just like the RN The PANG is a bit of an unknown quantity to say the least . It is certainly a vanity project in the extreme . They are still committed to using non – enriched uranium which will put it out of action for two years in every ten . Just like the CdG . They don’t currently know what they’ll put on it as the Germans are showing no interest in part funding a SCAF maritime version they dont need nor want . It’s dangerous using France as a positive comparison was my point .

      • Pathetic levels of cost cutting! On something costing so much it is mind boggling there seems no intent to protect the investment!

      • Maybe no one even bothered to check the actual costs not to mention the risks vs. costs, 30mm are the cheapest options and works under any weather condition

  11. You don’t need extra gun and missile systems fitted to the carriers!! Your integrated network of picket ships comprising Air defence destroyers and ASW ships provides 360 degree defence for your carrier.And a couple of Astutes lurking about underneath…Sorted…Hang on though…Um…When are we thinking of going?

  12. Layered means by other ships in a carrier strike group. We don’t have enough ships or aircraft for one, let alone two, carrier strike groups and therefore iwe are reliant on allies. In a hot war sometimes others don’t want to get involved. (Like the UK!) That means we are vulnerable and lacking sovereign capability. When asked what we have enough of, from ships to aircraft we are severely under equipped? We are repleat in excuses though!

  13. Seems an odd decision. Hypothetical but I imagine that it is possible to fit something like rapid sentry. A mix of LMM and Starstreak would perhaps be more useful than the (none existent) 30mm guns.

    • Something with a radar and LMM… You mean Wildcats? Yes. I think we could fit those. To be less facetious, we don’t need the full Rapid Sentry panoplay because the radar and the combat management systems are already there. We’d just need the effectors. As I recall, we tried adding Martlets to a naval 30mm gun at one point, which unfortunately would bring us full circle. I’m not sure what soft-kill systems are on the carriers, but maybe Rapid Sentry’s Guardian and NINJA systems might also be useful.

      • The Wildcats fill the role of a more outer layer defence as I’m sure you know. Very different to what is being discussed here.

        I see the advantage of something like rapid sentry is that it could operate without the carriers radar and CMS if required, just like the phalanx.

        The co-located gun and missile looks cool but not sure it is a great idea. As you can only use one at a time. In a swarm scenario I imagine having multiple options available at any one time id an advantage.

        • Their own radar? You must be ‘aving a Giraffe! I’d have thought EO/IR would be enough for a ship-based system to take over, as Martlets ride lasers. However, as I type, thinking about queueing up multiple targets in swarms, I can see how radar could be useful in poor vis.

      • Naval Group’s MPLS looks like it can hold 60x LMM if all four modules are used for them. That would be quite something.

  14. It is the modern version of “spoil the ship for a halfpenny of tar”. The QE carriers are great , but lack escort & support ships. Their F-35 lack stand off weapons & drop tanks. A few CMV-22 for onboard delivery “ship to shore” would be good. I still think AAG for STOBAR should be slotted in at refit.

  15. Let’s take a £3bn vessel, load it with £2bn+worth of aircraft, up to 1,600 people and skimp on £4m worth of protection to save money.

    The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

  16. Penny pinching once again by the Royal Navy no doubt under MOD influence, when are all these so called Admirals going to speak out and consider the defence of their ships and sailors.

  17. Stupid not to add them for the low cost and the massive need and use they might have in any conflict, short sighted move by fools. Save a few £ and regret it it later its the MOD way, more admirals than ships says it all.
    Yet these so called Admirals are silent like they have been for years while navy falls apart.

  18. In WW2, no matter how many escorts and CAP, some thing always got through, only an idiot would thing that an escort can do every thing. Only an arrrogant fools who over rates our limited kit and ammo would say no to adding a cheap defence against cheap drones and sea drones.
    This will come back and bite real hard if we go up against mass cheap drones, too late then, all to save a few £ now that like every other saving we never see the money again. Lions lead by donkeys.

  19. “At pace”
    “Stepping up”
    “Agile”
    “World class”
    “Layered defence”
    ” Biggest sustained investment since the end of the Cold war”
    “2.5%, 3%, 3.5%”
    Yap yap yap.
    I get the layered bit, they’re the best defended airfields we have.
    Ceptor. Viper. CIWS. ESM. Movement.
    With the Drone threat, and what we are seeing in the world, when does the “just in case” scenario come into play and you install guns incase all else fails.
    Maybe start a petition for ministers to have their Protection detail removed. After all, they cost a lot of money and there are lots of police around Downing Street.
    Further more, you don’t need the tunnel running to the DCMC, do you? Lets seal that off as well….
    Sensible contingencies never seem to be skipped by HMG, FOR HMG, do they….?

    • “they’re the best defended airfields we have”

      Interesting. Right now, I wonder if Cyprus edges that title. Planes? Check. Multinational ship escorts? Check. Multiple radar coverage including Crowsnest? Check. Sky Sabre? Check. Rapid Sentry? Check.

  20. Given the lack of escorts, the carriers need as much CWIS as it is possible to fit.

    In comparison look, at France’s carrier Charles de Gaulle:

    4 × 8 cell launchers with Aster-15 SAM.
    2 × 6 cell launchers Mistral short-range SAM
    8 × Giat 20F2 20 mm cannons
    3 × Nexter Narwhal (not sure if these replace or complement the other 20mms)

  21. Seems odd to me if you have the mounts and the guns from retired kit get the carriers tooled up better to have and not need than get caught with your trousers down at some point in the future

  22. i cant understand why they would not fit the guns , there must be plenty of second hand guns from the retiring class 23 , why would you not. at almost no cost . it must be better then no guns.

  23. How extraordinary it is that the Royal Marines – part of the Royal Navy – are armed and equipped to the teeth and much envied by the Army. And yet the RN’s ships notoriously lack weaponry and lethality and it is widely referred to as the ‘Fitted For But Not With’ navy!

      • Outside of the recent purchases of Crye and KS-1’s the RM have never been armed in a way that was envied by the Army, and even then, it’s possible to get that kit in the army.

        • Yes, exactly.
          I assume that 40, 45 resemble a Light Infantry Battalion in most aspects, including heavier fire support, and UKCF artillery and GBAD are RA assets anyway.

          • Until recently kit was at Army standard for the RM, broadly, if Operational Infantry units where getting something that’s what the Marines where getting, but the Marines had a rep within the Army for only using issued kit, while the Army is often happy to let troops suppliment issued equipment with individual purchases. So in effect the Marines often had worse kit than the infantry because your infanteer might go out and spend 300£ on custom made webbing.

  24. In another world long long ago before First Entry….

    ‘When these carriers become operational, we can backfit them with all the defensive systems we’re leaving off to get them over the finish line’

    One of those systems was a SHORAD missile system like Sea Ceptor.

    The idea that UK carriers are uniquely invulnerable to a leaker is barking.

  26. Of course not, no point, we haven’t anything to put in the guns and not enough planes to man the carriers so why bother? Naturally we need an extra ten thousand or so civil servants to decide it though.
    Go through the civil service alphabetically and leave every 50th person in a job and sack the rest, would be a starting point. Then put the money saved into the armed forces. Make it so that ALL government spending including overseas aid is on British goods and services to cut our unemployment. Scrap the Mauritius bull shit and keep the Chagos. Realise the USA is our enemy and don’t waste money on a state visit and stop buying third rate crap from them

  27. Keir said he’s a bit skint at the moment because he’s busy spending it on other things like biscuits for meetings but they are looking at a long range pea shooter that can be made from some plastic tubing and some sticky back plastic and lots of compressed air.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here