At the ‘Combined Naval Event 2023’ conference held in Farnborough in May, Colonel Phil Kelly, the Head of Carrier Strike and Maritime Aviation within the Royal Navy’s Develop Directorate, presented an ambitious vision for the Royal Navy’s future in maritime aviation.

This vision, part of the broader Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) initiative, includes ‘Project Ark Royal’.

Colonel Kelly’s presentation highlighted several pivotal challenges and objectives:

  1. F-35 Deployment Limitations: The colonel pointed out the current constraints, stating, “Lack of Mass – F35 mass will not reach level required to resource both QEC with full Combat Air potential.“
  2. Urgency for Uncrewed Platforms: Emphasising the inevitability of adopting these platforms, he noted, “The question is not ‘if’ the Naval force will prioritise and leverage un-crewed platforms and systems, but how quickly and efficiently, in resource constrained environments.“
  3. Automation for Increased Capacity: Colonel Kelly underscored the importance of automation, “We must free up warfighter capabilities for critical operations, by automating routine/repetitive tasks.“
  4. Operational Complexities: The focus is on “operating in complex and contested areas all the while reducing the risk to life, force, and mission.“
  5. Enhancing Operational Reach: The presentation highlighted the need to “increase our range, endurance, and persistence in order to build advantage.“

Retrofitting

As part of the FMAF vision, the Royal Navy aims to retrofit arrestor gear and assisted launch equipment to the Queen Elizabeth class.

We’ve known about this part for some time, back in 2021 the Ministry of Defence confirmed that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers might be fitted with catapults ‘in the coming years’ in order to launch certain types of aircraft.

MoD confirm aircraft carriers may be fitted with catapults

The goal is “Demonstrating the potential to INCREASE MASS AND ENHANCE LETHALITY with complimentary uncrewed capabilities and enablers.”

Programmes

Several initiatives underpin this vision:

  • MUAS Concept Demonstrator: This is central to understanding the potential of MUAS, with an aim to “Setup required enablers, Understand full Potential.”
  • Capability Study and Development Coherence: The Royal Navy is focused on “Study Capabilities, Gather Evidence, Coherence with DEV and FGEN” to maximise operational effectiveness.
  • Uncrewed Systems in Development: Systems such as VIXEN, VAMPIRE, PROTEUS, PANTHER, and FTUAS are highlighted.
  • Project Ark Royal: This project involves retrofitting arrestor gear and launch equipment, pivotal for “operation of high performance Uncrewed strike and support systems.“

Project Ark Royal

‘Project Ark Royal’, as part of the Royal Navy’s Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) initiative, is a crucial step towards enhancing the Navy’s operational capabilities.

As part of Ark Royal, significant upgrades to the Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) carriers would be undertaken. A key enhancement is the addition of an angled flight deck alongside arrestor gear.

Here’s a look at its key requirements, with direct quotes from the original presentation.

Key Requirements

  1. High-Performance Uncrewed and Crewed Aircraft Operations: The project “Enables operation of high performance Uncrewed strike and support systems” and holds the “Potential to enable operation of FW crewed aircraft (e.g. F/A-18E, F-35C, Rafale).”
  2. Initial Demonstrations and Assessments: It’s planned that “Ramp launch to be demonstrated initially, with subsequent assessment once recovery systems are in place to enable full integration can be evidenced.“
  3. Launch and Recovery Equipment: The ARK ROYAL – QEC Aircraft Launch & Recovery Equipment is a critical component, designed to “Enables rapid deployment of FW assets held at Alert in order to conduct a range of missions.“
  4. Minimising Weight and Cost Implications: A significant focus is on how the “Weight and cost implications of MUAS minimised, reducing through-life capability cost.“
  5. Wider Aircraft Range Operation: This equipment is “Necessary for the operation of a wider range of crewed and uncrewed aircraft,” enhancing the Navy’s versatility in air operations.
  6. Enhanced Cooperation with Allies: An integral part of this project is “Enables closer operation with allies and partners including alignment with the UK/US SOI on carrier cooperation.” Specifically, “VIXEN will depend on this for recovery to QEC.“
  7. Launch Recovery Requirements: Project Ark Royal is tailored to meet the rigorous “Launch Recovery” needs of modern naval aviation.

Timeline

The plan shown below outlines a series of sequential developmental and testing phases.

Click to enlarge

The plan commences with the introduction of small-scale Uncrewed Air Systems (UAS) to establish a foundational capability for Carrier Strike. Following the initial integration, the focus shifts to developing the more complex Maritime Uncrewed Air Systems (MUAS).

Large ‘Mojave’ drone flies from British aircraft carrier

Down the road, key equipment such as aircraft arrestor gear is slated for deployment. Subsequent phases involve rigorous Joint Warrior operations, which serve as field-testing environments for emerging technologies like the VAMPIRE system. Alongside, there is an effort on enhancing data and digital frameworks.

Moving through the timeline, Crewed-Uncrewed Teaming (CUC-T) becomes a focal point, crucial for testing the interoperability and efficiency of combined human and uncrewed systems. The plan further includes a series of demonstrations, notably for systems such as VIXEN, a multirole uncrewed jet aircraft.

The effort culminates in a demonstration of the Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) carriers’ enhanced capabilities due to the Ark Royal project.

The Point

The project is focused on gathering crucial evidence to inform the defence choices available at IR25, ensuring that decisions are based on comprehensive and current data. A key aspect of this programme is to present options for the early introduction of advanced air systems and Aircraft Launch/Recovery Equipment into service.

Furthermore, a significant milestone for the project is the planned delivery of a concept demonstration in 2024, which aims to ‘open up’ the Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) deck. This demonstration is expected to showcase the potential and readiness of these systems for integration into the Navy’s operational framework as it prepares for IR25.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

251 COMMENTS

  1. I really hope we get some financial backing behind this project. The carriers could become far more capable and cost effective by operating a wide family of drones in conjunction with manned F35B to the point that their won’t be much space for more than 12 manned aircraft onboard.

    I just hope all these projects don’t go the same way as our previous drone efforts with a successful tech demonstration then nothing or procuring a few of what ever the US is doing.

    I still have my doubts about Proteus being slotted in for the AEW CROWSNEST replacement. It would tie us to a rotary wing platform with limited range and altitude in comparison to a MALE based solution.

    • I’m allowing myself to be optimistic as it’s a cheap way of achieving the political win of disarming the ’empty carriers’ narrative.

      However that’s only going to deny votes to the SNP and Labour are more likely to benefit from that then Conservatives.
      And Labour, being the next government, are probably less concerned about that, not having the ’13 frigates’ myth on their record.

      • I like this kind of forward thinking. It’s a welcome change to talking about real ships that will enhance the capability of the service all round and not more of the motherships rubbish I’d love to see the contender argent conversion prospect happen that would kill two birds with one stone it could be a dual HLP and drone carrier mega flexible, and with all manner of changes and upgrades possible

    • If the number one problem is not enough aircraft, then how does diverting spend towards an already quite capable platform improve the lack of aircraft situation?

      If we had loads of them, then catapults would of course improve every single one of them, but the capability of the F35b is not the number one problem.

      • I agree 💯 They hide 🫥 from reality the big elephant 🐘 in the room which is lack of jets even if the F35 is not as capable as the A version or C version

        • The F35B has identical capability to the A and C. The only difference is how they take off and land. Internal fuel capacity varies. And the A and C can carry up to 2000lb class weapons in the internal bays. The number of weapons is no different between the 3 varients.

          • With sidekick, A and C variants can carry 6 AAMs internally. That and range is the most important difference.

          • But the really important parts like radar, avionics, defensive aids, networking capability, stealth are the same. And even with a smaller fuel load, the F35B still has very good endurance compared to most 4th gen fighters. Including Typhoon.

          • I always find it comical when people make out that F35B is useless because of its range, but will talk up F18, despite F35B having a longer range.

          • Think that claiming the F-35B has identical capability to A and C is very, very wide from the truth, the C has~ 20,000 lbs of internal fuel whereas the B is only ~13,000 lbs, and heaviest use of fuel used on take-off. The C payload ~17,000 lbs and B ~9,300 lbs taking off horizontallyn not vertically. Another limitation of the B is the weapons bay is shorter as the space needed for the vertical lift system of the engine and therefore cannot fit JSM, AARGM-ER or the new USAF air to ground missile SiAW.

          • So, all the things I mentioned in my comment. Fuel and weapons. The C doesn’t carry more weapons than the B. It can just fit up to 2000lb Paveways in the internal bays because, as you said, they are slightly longer. The RAF/RN no longer operates the 2000lb Paveway 3. So it matters not. And the B won’t normally take off vertically. It will land vertical or use SBRVL. 👍

          • Fuel and weapons, Don’t know exact figures but expect the C with its extra fuel and catapult assisted take-off will have approx. twice the range of a B, similarly C with its higher payload can carry more weapons and as mentioned previously the longer and bigger weapons bay of the C can fit the missiles, especially those specifically designed to take advantage of the extra length, the anti-ship Joint Strike Missile, the anti-radiation AARGM-ER and the new USAF air to go ground missile SiAW in development for the A, which has same length weapons bay as the C.   
              
            Another advantage of conventional carriers not like QNLZ with its ramp is they can operate the E2 Hawkeye for AEW, even the much smaller French Charles De Gaulle carrier operates them which give an order of magnitude much better AEW coverage than the Merlin Crowsnest due to the limited height a helicopter can reach. 

          • The C does not have double the range of the B. The C needs bring back fuel for potential missed bolters. The C doesn’t carry more weapons. It can just carry slightly larger weapons due to the longer weapons bays. Weapons that we don’t use anyway. The F35B will be able to carry 8 SPEAR3 missiles and two Meteors internally. We also won’t be buying the E2 Hawkeye. It’s a 70’s design, and drones are the future of AEW. Cats n Traps require a much higher training durden for crews and flight deck crews. You also need a larger flight deck crew of aircraft handlers. They can’t operate in as high a sea state’s. And are much more maintenance intensive. And much more expensive. QE class with F35B is by far the best bang for our buck.

          • Sounds a little like the “What have the Romans ever done for us” sketch from Life of Brian …apart from Weapons, Range, Fuel Capacity, Stealth Profile …whats the C got the B hasn’t…

      • That’s my fear here. Better to spend the money securing enough F35b’s before trying cats & traps which shamefully cost us dear last time we went down that road. It will take a carrier out of service a year or so while refitting. Time & opportunity for our enemies to make more mischeif.

      • The issue is we can’t afford to lose any and that will effect how they can be used. We need a mix of systems: ones we can’t afford to lose like the F-35 and ones we can afford to lose like drones.

        While price per units are not exact it looks like you can buy at least two of these for one F-35.

    • Well that was really useful! You addressed the points that you disagree with and stated what you think is the answer. Oh wait it’s just a sentence with swear words in it.

        • Reckon ?, go take a look at his other stuff, I’m haemorrhaging Pee mostly now…. The F18/Stringbag comparison is still causing leakage ! and here he’s talking about having just 12 Manned aircraft…. and a whole bunch of stuff that just doesn’t exist ! Comedy Gold every post. 😂😂😂 and you think it’s not “Crap”. 🙄

    • I also hope the funding gets put through for these projects. The U.K. has a chance to take a lead in carrier drones. This in turn could lead to success with export sales to the other non catapults navies.
      With regards to the catapults, arrestor gear I wonder what the prospects of a U.K. system being made? The USA ones are really costly and a bit over kill for drones.
      I’m surprised that manned aircraft are being included now. The U.K. doesn’t need that on the carriers yet. A spiral development of catapults, arrestor gear may have been cheaper and again have potential for other countries.
      Interesting times coming over this decade.

      • You’re absolutely right I posted exactly the same point of view yesterday, we don’t need the US EMAL cats or AAG capability and it isn’t just the cost of buying them. You need to provide the Electricity, rebuild the flight deck and find somewhere to put the extra flight deck crews.
        Besides which what would we use them for ? We have bought the F35B which isn’t suitable for Cats or Traps and have not even specified a Carrier version of FCAS.
        The spec the RN Rfi issued was for 55,000 lbs so about half the USN system.
        Which if you add an angled flight deck really ups the Ante of the QE airgroup. Sea guardians and MQ-25 Stingray are real force multipliers and are affordable. I find this later NL article way better.

        https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-navy-has-ambitious-plans-for-its-future-maritime-aviation-force/

    • They can sugar coat things and did so for years ! The fact that the UK needs an angled catapult carrier was evident from the start , but as usual it’s let’s waste money 💰 then regret then waste more money with inadequate additions and regret even more.

      This carriers are an absolute disaster and have never become fully operational due to technical problems and lack of air wing. Do you think the Chinese would be intimidated by few F35? You just can’t build carriers on the cheap!

      Catapult angled deck carrier with capable jets should been built from from the start! To do that now it would cost more than when that plan was rejected at the start by incompetent politicans.

      • Ld Cameron for instance. Hope he gets crash course on Naval Aviation and its potential; if that’s the right phrase?
        Why bitch about the carriers? Seems we are getting the future right at last.

      • Think you will find the the cats and traps talked about are nothing to do with full size aircraft, don’t expect the mods for drones to be major structural ones .

      • What plane would you be flying off your angled deck carriers? F35C is even further behind than B so you still have empty carrier decks even today. If we went F18 we would have been investing substantial sums into an outdated platform.

        We have no need of a CATOBAR carrier, it would be more waste for a less flexible platform that we could not afford to operate.

        • Jim you are of course totally correct. The cats and traps light being envisaged are for UAVs and won’t be in the same class as EMALS.
          The RN doesn’t seem to need F18s when we have F35Bs not do we need to launch or recovery Greyhound or Hawkeye AWACS.
          As long as the f35b upgrades actually happen and the RAF/ FAA F35Bs can carry Meteor. Spear3 and externally a LRASM OR JASM then that’ll be just fine.

    • Jim, It’s certainly piqued my interest. FDO and Captfltdk, Handlers, are really going to have to have their wits about them,. Looking at the Ark Royal map, that is.
      👌😁.

  2. I heard an interesting claim yesterday from sub brief that there are currently only two US navy carriers configured for long term operations of F35C. Can anyone substantiate that?

    • That is interesting, not heard that, although the last few articles I read did say that they were having issues with deploying f35C in numbers, with only 2 front line squadrons deployed…long term the USN have cut their ambition to only deploying 1 squadron of f35C per carrier.

      • If that was the royal navy the internet would be up in arms. It’s quite interesting though given how powerful F35 is compared to F18. You could say an America class can out fight a Nimitz class if it’s carrying 24 F35B.

        I really don’t understand the USN half hearted efforts with F35C. They are doubling down on FA XX / NGAD but that’s a dangerous gamble and F18 is looking increasingly pointless in a match up with China.

        • Why are you spreading misinformation about the US Navy? You know nothing about anything other than what ppl tell you here

          • That’s not the great comeback you think it is. Jim’s not spreading disinformation, if you have a comeback or a correction you can post the correction without being unpleasant.

          • He just like’s to troll, he has got very little knowledge. I think he thinks he is being smart by making off hand comments and misquoting me all the time, actually it’s a form of flattery when someone has to constantly mis quote you to appear to win an argument 😀

          • Yes Mark, I run two accounts with multiple thousands of posts on this website, and have been active for five years, just for this one interaction. 🙄

          • You seem to be surrounded by Trolls 😏I blame the subject matter you feed them. “F18 scares no one” 😂😂😂

          • “You remember when I turned up” yet I’ve been posting here for 5 years and you’ve been posting for a month. So whose the multi-account now troll?

            BTW if you think posting here will cause RSI I recommend you stay away from University or anything that actually involves writing.

          • M1 is a long time poster who got banned, mate, now with a new ID. He likes Seaman Staines on TV and all that as a clue as to who I think he is.

          • Well he has always had a colourful posting style! He’s never treated me badly in any way, so he’s fine by me.

          • Who are some of you people? Do readers keep in records of other people’s inputs to the site just to try and lord it with their internet gained knowledge? There are too many on I who spout utter shyte with no experience in actual service and what it’s like to have bombs going off next to the floating tin bomb that some idiot once claimed was the best of its type in the world.all the this is stealthy this missile goes further than than that one some people on here are in a fantasy world where nothing is real unless it’s in the BAE/Lockheed, catalogue’s .I’m through with the site and some of the self appointed experts on it.

          • Behave, mate, in that case my arms have dropped off years ago with the sad number I have accumulated! 😳

          • ‘You know nothing about anything other than what ppl tell you here’

            Then please enlighten us ‘people’ with your views. Have a go.

          • What a stupid statement. “You know nothing about anything other than what people tell you”

            Err, just think about that statement, is that not the basis of how you learn, Or did I waste all those years at uni, as I sat in some long lectures being told things, and I learned the basics of driving by someone telling me

          • You might have missed that the sentence is inside quotation marks Andi? Have I misunderstood? Otherwise I agree.

            Great story.Willy Russell, the writer who gave us Educating Rita like myself went to a Bash Street School. His headmaster disliked him. (Mine liked me) One day he asked the class of dead end boys what was the greatest invention in the history of human kind? Various dim lads replied. ‘Sir, chewing gum’ or ‘Football?’ impatiently the head ignored Russell but was getting nowhere. Finally he turned and said ‘Well, Russell?’ ‘Sir, the wheel’ ‘Someone told you that!’ snapped the furious headmaster.

          • what Miss information, it’s well published and confirmed by the USN, they are actually really having problems in regards to knowing what they want to do with their stike wings and readiness…as well as getting the mass of f35Cs they need for their carrier air wings..infact the marines have 3 times to number of F35b squadrons as the USN had f35C squadrons last time I looked and the USN are not happy about overall strike aircraft availability and have had to do a lot of work to keep the F18 numbers up..as a backfill to the F35C numbers being so low…the original plan was to have each carrier air wing with 2 squadrons of F35C and 2 squadrons of f18s as a strike package…it’s now dropping that to one squadron of F35C ( with 14 tails) and what seems to be staying with 2 squadrons of F18 ( ten tails each) …for a likely strike wing of 34 aircraft, 14 fifth generation and 20 fourth. Infact the USN have purposely slowed down f35C orders to below what the manufacturer said it could produce…as it stated it wanted to free up funds for other priorities and at the same time has invested in ensuring the readiness of its f18 fleet is increased. The USN ordered only 9 for this financial year and 15 each over the next five years…when the manufacturer has clearly stated it can proved more than 20 per year.

        • I think the real question is – “do USN want to be tied to F35C and have to own all the ongoing development and sustainment costs?”

          I disagree – F18 in its latest evolution is still quite potent.

          • They are actually very very luke warm about it to be honest…only ordered 9 ( the manufacturer could build 20) for this finically year to put money in other places…while investing a lot of time and effort into bringing up their f18 fleet to readiness but they are going to be dropping the number of squadrons in their carrier strike wings to 3 ( 1 f35C and 2 F18 )….it’s very much looking like that by 2025 the UKs Elizabeth would be carrying more 5 gen F35s that’s a U.S. carrier… after all 2 squadrons.

            I think the USN have looked at the future and decided it’s drone based…so they are simply not willing to invest in large numbers of 35C…I suspect in their head by the time F18 is retired they see a strike wing being one squadron of human flown f35Cs acting as Command, control and sensor nodes backed by 3 squadrons of strike based drones…in the end your likely to only ever see around 10 squadrons of f35C..so 140 aircraft..

        • The USN is currently recapitalizing their entire F-18 fleet to the Block III standard in addition to standing up F-35C squadrons. The USN is buying 275-ish F-35Cs.

      • The USN has 2 F-35 Squadrons now and 2 are in transition, with many more to come. The Marines have one F-35C squadron active already, one in transition, and and will have 4 altogether for CVN operations, in addition to 14 F-35B squadrons. Interestingly the Marines are the second largest operate of F-35s in the world after the USAF.

        • Hi Paul yes the marines have very much been far more enthusiastic operators of the F35 than the navy. Probably because the navy is not as yet seeing any significant disadvantage to the F18 and cannot see the cost benefit of more than 1 squadron per strike wing of F35s…which is not nessarily a stupid idea as by the time the f18 goes out of service there will probably be a high performance drone option to replace them….and if that’s the case you only need a few f35Cs to run as sensor, command and control nodes.

          But it does mean that you are only ever going to see 1 f35C squardon per strike wing as this is now the USN plan and they are purchasing to a slow rate to support this..9 ordered this financial year and 15 each year for the next five, that means the F35C is only ever going to be a niche purchase..compared to say the f35B which is looking to end up well over 500 purchased and built and operated by at least 4 nations ( with potential for another 2). It will also mean the west is going to have more F35B carriers ( possibly twice as many) than f35C carriers, with more F35Bs likely deploying to sea in a major conflict…

          • Yes, the USN wasn’t looking to replace it’s entire Super Hornet fleet with F-35Cs, while the USMC is definitely replacing it’s entire legacy Hornet fleet (they never bought Super Hornets) and Harrier fleet with F-35s, the vast majority B models.

            While I wouldn’t characterize 270+ F-35Cs as a niche purchase, they were never intended to be the dominant plane in a USN carrier air wing, that was never in the plan.

            The Block III Super Hornet is only now deploying for the first time on the Vinson, it is a major upgrade to the Super Hornet fleet and will definitely be in service for some time, even alongside the future F/A XX. The whole Super Hornet fleet will be upgraded to the Block III standard over time, it is a major undertaking in it’s own right and doesn’t get enough press.That’s 500+ planes.

      • The USMC will use the F35 as a replacement for the AV8-B Harrier.
        The USN will consentrate on F/A 18 and enhanced versions plus a replacement.
        Likewise the F15 has had a total refurbishment with a new build version, found to be cheaper than the F22 and the F35 to buy and operate !

    • Why are you trying to obtain classified information about US Navy configuration that would be useful to the Chinese and/or the Russians? Who are you intending to pass this information on to?

    • I don’t see why that would be the case. F-35C is just a CATOBAR aircraft, it doesn’t require deck modifications like the F-35B does.

      • I suspect all very minor stuff more related to logistics and the specific things you need in place to maintain an F35…why would they have more than 2 of the carrier with all that in place if they are only able to deploy 2 squadrons into strike wings, I suspect they only make the modifications as the f35C squadron becomes part of that carriers strike wing.

    • I’m not sure that is the case, the carriers do need to have additional consoles fitted and be able to interface and download the F35s mission planning, reconnaissance and sensor data logs and then using AI and high processing power analyse this mass of data to extract the best operational awareness possible. However I think the USN is ahead of the curve and already making inroads on this issue.
      Carl Vinson CVN70, Abraham Lincoln CVN72, USS Ford (CVN 78) all 3 have deployed with F35Cs onboard in the last year or so, so that’s at least 3 US carriers we are aware of through open sources. Id imagine all the USN carriers are either able to deploy or about to be made able to deploy with F35Cs. The USN has committed to purchasing at least 270 F35Cs and the US marine corps a further 67. That is a considerable force.

    • Could be true. I can only think of Carl Vinson and Abraham Lincoln off the top of my head that have undertaken F-35C operations, but the USS George Bush trialled them, so presumably is also equipped — not sure if there’s a “long term operations” qualification it fails on. George Washington and Theodore Roosveldt are in the pipeline and the USS John F Kennedy should be the first Ford class equipped to run them.

      The USN seems a little cool on migrating to F-35C and are taking their time.

      • I chased up and think Paul was right (below): both USS George Washington and Theodore Roosveldt already completed the mods earlier this year, even though they haven’t undertaken any F-35C operations yet.

    • You’re misquoting. Only two carriers have been designed/built with the F-35C in mind (Ford class). The previous Nimitz class design dates from the 60’s-70’s, long before the F-35C was a twinkle in anyone eyes. To the contrary, the F-35C is smaller than the F-14 and all US carriers have no issues operating it.

    • Sub Brief isn’t a very good source for many things. There are currently 4 US carriers configured for F-35Cs, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Carl Vinson, and Abraham Lindon. The John C. Stennis will get F-35C capability by 2025, the new John F. Kennedy will have the capability upon commissioning in 2025, and the Ford will go into the yard to get it, also in 2025.

    • Yes and No. The 2 US carriers that deploy to pacific (vinson and roosevelt) have both recieved the modification and have flown F-35’s operationally. Lincoln has recieved the modifications but its only done 1 deployment since it recieved it and it never had a F-35 squadron deployed. The rest of the nimitz class will require the modifications at their midlife refuel and upgrades

      The exceptions are nimitz and eisenhower, even tho eisenhower was the carrier that they used to certify the F-35. Neither will fly them as they will be retired in next few years. Ford has not been certified for F-35 ops due to the emals

      USN only has about 27 F-35C’s. USMC has more but still less than 4 squadrons between them (USN – 10 per squadron, USMC 14 per squadron)

  3. April Fools day is a long way off…..more pie in the sky. The navy gets smaller and these ridiculous bespoke schemes come out that we can never afford. Give your heads a wobble! Somebody!

  4. Interesting that they are talking about conventional take off and landing crewed fixed wing aircraft. These will require much heavier cats and traps, i.e. more money, more space etc… The orginal request for information released a few years ago asked about light weight systems suitable for small UAV’s. Interoperability with the USN would seem to be the driver for this change.

    I cannot see us buying the F35C in addition to the F35B so fitting full sized cats and traps to the benefit of the USN might not survive the inevitable rescoping that will happen down the line. My guess is this option is the sacrifial lamb…

    Overall, is looks like an sensible if ambitious programme but I don’t see full operating capability until the 2030’s as a recent article on Navy Lookout (June 2023) suggested that Vixen wouldn’t be operational until then at the earliest. As Vixen is possibly the main drive for the cats and traps I would see them being kicked down the road as well, or at least the cats as they are the biggest risk (see USS Gerald R Ford).

    Cheers CR

    • I think it’s just a stretch goal, rather than a sacrificial lamb. Like if the entire CATOBAR thing works well and there is enough funding they’d like to maybe be able to do a system that’s heavy enough to launch manned (or high preformance unmanned) aircraft, but if they can’t it’s not the end of the world.

      My problem with it was the huge number of people who (when the Navy Lookout Article released) jumped on it as “THE RN IS RE-CONFIGURING to CATOBAR AND REVERSING THE F35B BUY!!!!.”

      • Hi Dern,

        Agree it could be a stretch target although I am kinda hoping they just focus on the main requirement of getting the UAV’s launched and recovered as that is key to increasing mass.

        As for people jumping on the idea that the RN is / might switch to CATOBAR – yeh, I agree it can be quite frustrating. I half expected to see quite a few of those posts on this thread. Still time I guess.

        Cheers CR

        • Same, launching manned aircraft on CATOBAR is pointless atm as it is just expenditure without capability increase. Sure we could launch F-18s and Rafale’s but, is that really worth the expenditure? We have enough foreign aircraft we can operate off our carriers for now. The only way it would be a worthwhile expenditure is if we started acquiring drones in the same weight category as conventional fighters, which is a long way off.

          • Yes a f35b is a far more capable aircraft than any 4 gen navel strike option…then you have all the issues of carrier qualifications that mean you have to run you air wing flight ops 24/7….the GR fords for instance are struggling to keep up its air wing’s qualification due to to catapult failure rate…the Elizabeth with f35b is just about the ultimate in cost effective 5 generation air wing and carrier ops…

          • Nobody is “struggling to keep up air wing qualification” in the USN. Total fake information. The F-35B only has 13,000lbs of internal fuel with a very big, thirsty engine. Without CATOBAR or shore based tanker options, it is very limited.

          • That was a very specific quote about the Ford and it’s issues with its catapult, it was a specifically quoted in a number of articles that on 2 out of every ten days the Ford is not able to maintain flight ops as the catapult failure rate is presently occurring around ever 600 and something sortie…

            “Vice Admiral Daniel Dwyer, the commander of the U.S. Second Fleet, said that the air wing “won’t be the full complement, but it will be nearly the entire air wing.” 

            one article stated that:”limited amount of time dedicated to a glitch-attenuated carrier qualification process likely constrained the number of carrier-certified pilots available to support the Ford’sinitial shakedown deployment.”

            This is a widely reported issue that is highlighted by a number of more knowledgeable media outlets and commentators on the USN. You cannot just call something fake news because you don’t like it.

            the F35 has a long combat range that the F18, you just cannot call a combat range of 833km short legged, it’s compares well with 4th generation aircraft….yes they will need to be a tanker solution but that’s not something that will get sorted out…but a strike range of 833km is plenty for almost all situations.

          • I’m sorry it’s widely reported that the Ford is struggling, it’s only managing between 500-650 sorties before it’s catapulted stops working and needs resetting, that means it’s only managing a flight schedule 8 out of 10 days…and it’s been reported that they have reduced the air wing on the carrier..most commentators feel this was because of pilot carrier qualification issues…it’s not fake news..the reduced air-wing is fact as is the catapult failure rate…as for the F35b it’s got a longer combat range than the F18 at 833km..so it’s perfectly adequate.and is on the better side of what you find in 4th generation aircraft…yes it would be nice to have tanker capacity but that’s not so something that will not be achieved…infact the F35b is profoundly superior to the F18 as a strike aircraft…as is the F35c and its a great shame the U.S. carriers will only be having 1 squadron of them due to financial constraints.

          • I think they are looking at flight refuelling and AEW which means heavy plus being able to haul other heavy weight ordinance skywards.
            Ukraine is showing us the future.
            The FAA and RAF are going to have to work together or maybe they have just decided its harder than they thought!
            Anyone who thinks we are going to be able to forget about Russia is deluded. They have endless resources and have some dangerous people at the top. They are dangerous because they still think early-mid 20th century.

    • Indeed, Good article but are you reading all the comments….. i’m in a hell of a state mate !!!!😂😂😂

        • Yes. me too…. Got mine rather poorly now and the Father in law with just days and the Mother in law not far off also ……. No fun here.

          • My Mum passed away Wednesday, Cptn. Had only been in hospital for 2 weeks.
            A blessing, I guess.

          • Up and down, my friend. It’s so surreal, I keep waiting to wake up from this dream, but I know I’m not going to.
            I’m sorry for turning UKDJ into a support group!

          • Don’t apologise, it’s a community and while we might squabble and argue a lot, but it’s still a community it’s here to be lent on when needed.

          • So sorry to here that mate, I lost my Dad 2 years ago, he had a fall, was taken into Hospital caught Covid and died alone as we were unable to visit…. I still beat my self up thinking about how he must have felt and why none of his family bothered to visit. The Covid conversations on here were rife and I remember saying that Hospitals would be death traps for the elderly and Ill, to which I had a fair bit of flack from certain posters. 🙄

          • Oh mate. That is tough. God, I still get upset at the thought of being unable to be with one of my pets who had to go to sleep at the vets during Covid, never mind my Dad!
            I’m in the beating up stage now at what might have been different, though I’m happy in the knowledge mum and I were v close and we love each other for eternity.

          • My Mum is going through the last days and having a clear out of our future burden…. This in itself is just so hard to bear, She has been extremely productive over her 90 years making stuff…. and now she is giving it all away to save us from having to….. I find myself in a sad situation, trying to be honest about whether I actually want to take much of her life’s creative talents. Life sucks.

          • Hmm, she has got to a great age. My mum passed 2 days before her 80th, which got to me.
            We are in a sort of similar situation, mum was a bit of a hoarder, like 3 Hoover’s in the loft! But also has lots of lovely things I’d not want to part from, and that includes her garden and pet cat.
            Life has turned on its head for us in a fortnight.

          • Sorry to hear that Daniele. May she rest in peace and you and your family find condolences and comfort in a life well lived.

          • Thank you to all. I admit I’ve never faced this before, and I’m veering from getting on and dealing with it to struggling.

        • Ermm ? what ? So let me get this straight, you are saying I’m part of the problem that my dad died ? As a positive person, I’m guessing you might just have replied to a different comment …. yes ? 😧

          • I think you might need to check what comment I replied too Mark. For what it’s worth, sorry about your dad passing, it’s something we all have to deal with at some point but none of us should have to.

          • Wow, thanks mate…. i’ll now think of you on a whole different level mate…. You obviously don’t give a flying.

          • Ah well, serves me right for trying to be nice to someone who obviously is just out to troll and look for a fight.

          • So you write that I’m “part of the problem” then play the “Nice” card. Yeah Dern whatever. 🙄

  7. Two years after the RFI on electro magnetic launch and recovery systems, this is the first indication that the project hasn’t been abandoned. But is it any more than playing about with possible ideas? For a navy that seems increasingly unable to man and fund existing assets, hoping to spend more on expanding the carriers’ capabilities is the wrong choice.
    The text indicates an ambition for a system powerful enough to operate current manned aircraft, feasible only with an EMAL system at the top end of the specifications in the RFI. Yet the pretty coloured chart suggests only modest expenditure over the next few years. I don’t believe this is much more than a fantasy from someone without a proper job.
    One thing is openly acknowledged – that we won’t acquire enough F35s to make full use of both carriers, thus confirming the original plan and how far short of it we will remain.
    With the serious need for more surface combatants, submarines and mine warfare motherships, we should accept that with the planned further purchase of F35s and the promise of UCAV operation without major expenditure on launch and recovery systems, the carriers will be capable enough for any likely scenario,

    • The US has approved a potential sale of an EMAL system to France for its proposed new carrier. The 2021 cost is > $1.3b for a single ship with the equipment installed during construction. Gives an indication of how expensive it would be to retro fit to 2 UK carriers.

      • PANG is going to cost a fortune. I can see the French pushing the programme through to completion but the cost is going to be eye watering. Naval architects I know estimate it cant be done for less than £9-10 billion and therefore really close to the cost of the USS Ford whilst being well over the combined cost of both QEC’s. I know what option I’d rather have- the 2 QEC’s. they are a very highly efficient carrier vessel and deliver big deck carrier capability at a relatively low price point.
        the PANG programme is going to essentially duplicate the issues that CDG has, only 1 carrier, prolonged zero carrier availability during refits and the fact the French strike carrier can only ever be deployed to one location. France has admittedly offset this somewhat with their Mistral class LPHD but those vessels don’t deliver high performance jets into the equation, unless of course the French opt for some F35Bs. Lol that’s about as likely to happen as me winning the euro millions, so 50 million to 1 chance, only I don’t play the lotto!

        • I was pointing out the likely huge costs of retro fitting an EMAL system to the QEs. I also made clear that if AEW can be carried out by an MQ 9 UAV variant, that and the planned purchase of more F35s would make the carriers as capable as we need them to be.
          So I have no idea what you are referring to.
          Perhaps you should read comments more carefully in future?

          • Still no tanker capability. 13,000lbs of internal fuel only gets you about 350 miles and 45 minutes on station – under optimal conditions.

          • Being able to handle a 45 min mission 350 miles away without refuelling isn’t all that bad. Not sure where the “only” aspect of the stat comes in. The advertised combat radius is about 570 miles, presumably without the 45 minute loiter.

            If we had cats and traps for UAVs, we could go with MQ-25, which has a target of delivering 6.8 tons of fuel across maybe 4 to 6 planes. It’s worth noting that two droptanks would provide 3.65 tons of fuel per plane, whereas Voyager can deliver 60 tons: and that’s a tanking facility we already have.

  8. I have long wanted QE/PoW to be fitted with advanced arrestor gear (AAG), to turn them into STOBAR carriers. I wonder what the 2023 cost would be?

    • About £1.5-2 billion each I think is a respectable estimate. Too much for the current defence budget to fork out for when there are so many capability gaps and other requirements that need resolving urgently.

        • No I’m not joking. EMALS is very complicated, very much not a fully matured technology at this time and requires intensive maintenance. The QEC would need 3 not 4 wires and therefore cost might be £1-1.5 billion per ship. Adding an angled deck, EMALS, arrestor wires etc is an expensive business. The QEC would need extensive time in dockyards to achieve this. One commentator said a year. I think that’s about right.

    • Does the F35B have an arrestor ‘hook’ ..I didn’t think it did (why would it)?
      I believe I read somewhere on here previously that may not an easy (read cheap) thing to retrofit even if it is technically possible at all ?
      Or are you advocating using other aircraft instead?

      • Well F/A-18E Super Hornet did trials to prove it could operate STOBAR for the Indian contract. That was won by a STOBAR Rafale. The real prize would be a STOBAR F-35C. Greater range & payload than the F-35B. Not to replace F-35B, but to supplement it. STOBAR would let us inter operate with allies who have naval F/A-18E or Rafale.

  9. Among the items listed, I think just introducing the angled deck (write some lines on the CV) is the most cost effective one.

    Operate MQ-9B STOL using it, and equip the MQ-9B STOL with ASW pods and (simplistic) AEW capability. 5 MQ-9Bs, 2 with ASW pods and 2 with AEW systems (and 1 in deep maintenance) will reduce the ASW patrol stress from the Merlin fleet, and reduce or even take-off the AEW patrol stress from Merlin Crowsnest.

    As RN is to lose HMS Westminster, it will be a nice option.

    Anything more than that will just require huge money and damage other assets of RN/FAA.

    • Realistically the Royal Navy is playing the long term game as the technology needed is a bit too expensive at the moment

    • Obviously the way to go- lowest cost, lowest risk. If an MQ 9 variant could operate effectively in an AEW role, the biggest weakness of the current air wing would be solved.

      • Not sure a drone can provide the requisite power outage to run the latest AESA radar sets? The hardware alone is heavy and would limit the drones range and endurance, then add difficulties like take off and landing- admittedly could be addressed by project Ark Royal but currently the technology isnt mature enough or proven to replace Crowsnest- maybe in 10-15 years time?

    • If MQ-9B STOL can take off with AEW pods within about 650 ft of runway, that sounds like a winner Donald San. That “if” is yet to be shown. I don’t care about ASW; Proteus can handle that and won’t need a carrier.

  10. They should never have been constructed without cats and traps or at least Prince of Wales should have been upgraded during construction, instead of having two ships with limited operating options. F35s are a long range plane no good for close contact or dogfights so the aircraft carriers have to be kept a far enough distance from where they are needed. Making it too far for attack helicopters to fly from them. If they had cats and traps they could fly close contact and fighter jets that can intercept at close range. F35s have limited armaments that they can only shoot and flea no good at intercepting multi targets they would soon deplete their supply, if they went in beast mode it makes them harder to launch they loose their stealth and they could not outfly most other like (Typhoons) they were never designed to get in close and fight dirty.

    • So you can operate some in beast mode further back and some clean up front. They have been working these tactics up for years.

      No western aircraft has ever fired more missiles in an air to air engagement than F35B can carry in an LO configuration.

      • The only reason they came up with beast mode is because they realised they have a very limited operational opportunity in stealth mode, it’s a very expensive plane to invalidate the stealth mode by sticking things on the outside of its stealth skin. Could have fitted cats and traps at the built stage and flew two types of jets from the carriers even if one was just fitted with them then they would have doubled the operational capacity of at least one. But bean counters won over the navy’s chosen configuration.

      • Id read a lot about the QEC deployment in 2021+2022 especially into eastern med when Russian high performance jets out of Syria tried to buzz the carrier, all jets inbound were easily intercepted at range and would have been destroyed in a real combat situation. The carriers airwing with F35Bs armed with AMRAAM and ASRAAM are perfectly capable.
        You have to remember the F35 does deliver a step change in capability vs even gen 4.5 jets. Most 4th gen jets literally cant fight in the same airspace as an F35B force. The F35s ability to engage targets whilst remaining virtually undetectable is 2nd to none and only matched by the F22 Raptor.

        • Using the F35 for air defence of the fleet is a huge waste of capability and is possibly a factor in the USN choice of aircraft mix for its carriers. The F18 is a perfectly capable air defender and being cheaper means the USN can afford more and keep the F35s for the role it was built for – first strike stealth attack taking out enemy air defense systems making way for conventional attack aircraft. Of course the UK has to use the F35B for all roles because of the design of the UK carriers and we can only afford a few of them. I recall that the new Conservative government under Cameron seriously toyed with the idea of replacing the F35B with the C variant + catapult arrester gear. After some months of fact finding is seemed that the idea was dropped – it would have been very expensive and fitting the capault arrester system would have increased the cost of the carriers significantly and caused more delay to what was already a slipping schedule particularly as the US EMALS was suffering development delays.

    • And that choice would have meant selling off QE, which would have been such a good look during PWLS’s propeller shaft problems.

      • They were built by bean counters and not by the opion of the navy who actually asked for cats and traps during the design stage they were overruled because the additional cost of approximately 1 billion.

        • Cost is always a factor in military procurement, the choice was fairly simple, 1 CATOBAR carrier or 2 STOVL carriers, and the choice was made for 2. It wasn’t just the “bean counters” who made the decision, it was also the navy that understood this was a better use of the available funding (and a good thing too because we’d only just now be getting a carrier online).

        • Money is never infinite. A set of cats and traps for the next French carrier will cost 1.3 billion. Add 6 E2Ds and that’s 4 billion in total.
          The RAF need F35s as well, and with CATOBAR RAF pilots won’t be carrier trained as it costs too much. ~60 F35Cs for the FAA and a similar number of F35As for the RAF. That much extra F35s would cost 2-3 billion more. 6-7 billion dollars for just 1 carrier, negates the second carrier.

          Now add in the cost of two separate training fleets, two separate fleets in maintenance, cost of adding booms on Voyagers etc.
          Now PoW sets sail for the US, but suffers propellor problems. With no carrier to replace her we are in the same situation as the French and as such, have a part time carrier capability.

          • Money is infinite????
            Yet the government has spent £56 billion on HS2 and only cancelled it when the the total expense is estimated at £116 billion Boris Johnson government wasted £14.5 billion on wasteful projects, £4billion on wasted IT projects since 2000, MOD has wasted £13 billion on cancelled projects since 2013, 2011/12 £120billion spent on wasteful on useless projects everything from £19000 for a motivation magician. £2.5 billion spent on covid ppe which in most cases is in private storage units costing millions a years. For you to say money is infinite is totally wrong. The money wasted since the time when was QEs A/C were put on paper they could have been nuclear powered fitted with cats/traps the size of the new US carriers.

          • Every government has waste, it’s impossible to prevent. Every UK Government sector needs more money, why should it go to the MOD?

            Sets of cats and traps for both carriers is 2.6 billion. Another 1.5 billion for 15 more F35Cs. 2.5 billion for 6 E2Ds, 2.5 billion for the F35s for both RAF and FAA is 9 billion.

            That gets you 74 carrier capable aircraft, and E2s for just 1 carrier. To have 2 full CSGs now you’ll need another 6 billion for more F35s and E2s.

            Both options will need 2 separate bases for the F35s as it’s too much for Marham. Money for booms for Voyager, extra costs in training, extra costs in maintenance, costs in converting the QEs as the costs for PANG will be cheaper, flight hours for the extra aircraft, running costs of another air base etc.

            You’re looking at at least 15 billion more for 1 CSG with 2 carriers, and 20 plus billion more for 2 full CSGs, with the Navy footing most of that bill. What pays for that? LPDs? Frigates? AUKUS?
            A whole lot will need to go.
            Buying the aircraft to operate two CSGs at the same time will end up being pointless as there will only be 1 solid support ship occasionally in service until 2030.

            The RAF would be very happy though.

          • Let’s assume all the above money exists and was magically given to the MOD. You still have the basic problem – CATOBAR means Nuclear and EMALS.
            Nuclear means double the crew. People qualified to work on Nuclear are rare as hen’s teeth.
            Whose reactor do you use? Rolls do not build anything in the required power range. We’re talking 150 MW per reactor in the Charles de Gaulle vs 20 MW in an Astute.
            So we’re developing a new reactor 10 times larger than what Rolls are currently building. Or getting half the ship built by the French.
            EMALS is still not mature despite the USN throwing everything at it.
            What could possibly go wrong

    • Well has you may know F35c was first choice ,then the Cameron government at the time had a change of heart and went for F35B knowing this would cost more than F35c. However did read at the time when QE was in construction and planing, catapults were miss out by mistake.Which why HMG went for F35B .Now is there any truth in this ? Who knows but what we do know when it came to Defence matters it was never positive sadly .👍

      • The QE class were built without catapults and arrestor gear to operate the F-35B. Ordered by Labour as STOVL carriers so nothing to do with Cameron. SDSR 2010 then proposed converting one of the carriers to CATOBAR to operate the F-35C. This was shelved on cost grounds plus the amount of time it would take 2 or 3 years later and they reverted back to the original F-35B plan.

      • The carriers were designed for STOVL during Labour. Cameron decided to switch it to CATOBAR and then decided to switch back to STOVL.

        • I believe it was originally meant include Cats & Traps then they moved the goalposts & decided to go for VTOL.
          At that point my understanding is that the capability to intall CATS & TRAPS at a later date was suppose to included in the design to make retro fitting possible/easier.
          However at some point during the too’ing & fro’ing design phase that accomodation was ‘omitted’ from the design & this ‘omission’ was ‘missed’- alledgedy…
          Hence why we can no longer fit CATS & TRAPS

  11. The carriers are redundant to Uk defence needs. We
    can’t afford carrier groups to “project global ” power just to support USA hegemony we need to spend the our scarce resources on submarines and asymetric defence. The country must invest in the economy new industries and create a Sovereign wealth fund. And somehow get a decent government.

  13. Wonder if there’s also an opportunity for any developments of the Aeralis to operate from the carriers? I think i saw a pilot less version in their earlier mix. And if the ski ramp was widened could any other current more conventional aircraft take off from it? Like a F18 or even the F35C? Has any drone flown off the ski ramp, anyone know?

    • Realistically if the British CVA-01 had not been cancelled then the British would be using British Aerospace Hawk trainers for carrier conversion training to replace the old Hawker Hunter and the Americans would have followed our lead in doing the same

    • Aeralis are probably waiting for another batch of funding to produce an artist’s impression of one landing on a QE class soon.

      If we are lucky they might also get a PowerPoint of one too.

    • I think the Americans did do a series of trails with the Super Hornet and the Ski jump at Pax River, trials related to potentially selling the aircraft to India.

    • There are a few 4th gen: F/A-18, Rafale M, Su-33 and Mig 29K for sure. The Chinese use J-15s from ramps at the moment but will migrate. Saab claim the Gripen M could in theory. I also can’t see any reason the F-35C couldn’t. It certainly has sufficient thrust to weight ratio.

      As for drones, the Bayraktar TB-3 has around 5 or 6 succesful flights under its belt and if it hasn’t been trialled off a ramp yet, it soon will.

  14. Just to point out that had CVA-01 not been cancelled in the 1960s, the Queen Elizabeth Class hull probably would be cats and traps because the British would not have gone down the route they did

    • That’s such a big hypothetical though. If CVA-01 hadn’t been cancelled would Harrier have existed and all that is valid, but also ignores STOBAR options, and the cost of building and maintaining CATOBAR. I’d say even the existence of the QE’s would be an open question if CVA-01 had been built.

      • the RAF Harrier yes, the navalised version Sea Harrier maybe not and the British would not use STOBAR as it is not practical and Queen Elizabeth Class would exist in some form as CVA-01 would have needed to be replaced in the 2010s or 2020s

        • Plenty of Nations use STOBAR, it’s eminently practical and a lot cheaper than CATOBAR, it’s entirely possible that had the CVA-01 gone ahead and the RN not ended up with STOVL fixed wing aircraft that we’d have gone ahead with a STOBAR design.

      • I think you are right if we had built CVA-01 we would have continued to operate cats and traps aircraft like the buccaneer, F18, etc and therefore the CVA01 and its sister ship (envisioned to have at least 2 of the class) would have still been in service now, albeit very elderly platforms. Whether either of these large strike carriers would have survived successive defence cuts made since 1990 I very much doubt it.

          • 🤣😂🤣😂 yeah exactly just before the Falklands war when a strike carrier would have ended the campaign in our favour very rapidly. The buccaneers could have taken out Argentina’s airforce on the ground.

        • Possibly, or possibly not. CATOBAR could easily have been seen as too expensive, we mgiht have two very old CATOBAR carriers refitted to be STOBAR, we could have no carriers because they’d been flogged off entirely, I think the only thing we can realistically agree on is that if CVA-01 had gone ahead the dominos that would have fallen would be so many and so hard to predict that we can’t really say what the currrent state of Carrier Strike in the RN would be.

    • Plus Argentina wouldn’t have risked war invading the Falklands. The retirement of the old Eagle class Ark Royal & plans to sell off Invincible & Hermes convinced the junta a coup de main could succeed. It very nearly did. Catobar would enable far better AEW & longer ranged strike, but STOVL is more resilient to battle damage.

      • I agree would of been interesting to see how the conflict would of work out if the Args had gone a head with invasion , if the old Eagle and Ark Royal were still about .

  15. If the effort is being undertaken to retro fit catapults and an angled deck, would it not be a good idea to increase the size to support F-35C and Rafale? Nimitz’s catapult is only marginally longer that proposed Vizen catapults. Would significantly increase interoperability with closest allies, and indeed open up other future options for integration of larger systems in the future.

    Maybe i’m missing something obvious.

    • Small extra length doesn’t equate to small extra cost, and not just to purchase and fitting cost. You need more than catapults to support manned CATOBAR operations: trained deck crew and operational procedures, created, practiced and continually updated, for planes the UK doesn’t have. So the odd cross-decking opportunity comes at tremendous cost and reliance on the other countries for practice and upkeep.

      I’m not saying it couldn’t be done. We’ve seen that V-22 Ospreys are exercised on the QE class carriers in the Westlant exercises, but that has fewer overheads and less requirement to keep deck crew specifically available. If there are catapult operations for UAVs, perhaps the deck crews could be trained for both crewed and uncrewed. Nevertheless it would be a lot of extra money for negligible advantage.

  16. Why not build them like that? Save money, safe them being taken out of service to be up graded. Save us making AEW helicopters. Oh yeah we do it on the cheap then pay for it later.
    Good idea if carried out though.

    • The French are looking at 1.3 billion for two sets of cats and traps for their next carrier. Double that for the RN. 6 E2Ds cost ~2.4 billion. 5 billion dollars for carriers that cost 6 billion each.

  17. Looks like a sensible idea to increase use of UAVs/CUAV. However I am less keen on the idea of trying to add old 4 generation planes onto the carrier or F35C. The F35C model is not that much better than the F35B. It would be more cost effective to buy more F35B and some MV-22s for AEW and transport work. Trying to turn QE carriers into F1, E2C platforms is not the future but the past.

    An UAV tanker like would be a very useful force multiplier.

  19. Looks like the navy Admirals are dreaming up more ways of wasting money on the £3 billion white elephant aircraft carriers , it’s like little boys playing games with taxpayers money.

  21. A drone carrier would be good aquirement,for the contender argent conversion Hlp option converting a merchant ship
    great the RN needs a HLP and the future looks drone shaped this is the Ideal time to steal. A march on other nations and go with the plan.

  22. Its all down to the next defence review in 2015/16 and whether the funding will be made available, realistically at least £1bn to cat (one full length and one half length EMALS each?) and trap (2 wire AAG?) the carriers and £1bn as a down payment towards developing and buying UAV’s/UCAV’s? What will scare the bean counters is the disastrous attempt in 2011/12 to turn POW in to a CATOBAR carrier – cancelled as estimated costs soared from £500m to £2bn. If I remember correctly a large chunk of the increase was the US insisting that all American equipment was purchased via the FMS programme, not directly from manufacturers. That added a pile of admin costs and R&D contributions – which we need to avoid this time round. But if Project Ark Royal doesn’t proceed, the QEC will remain poor value for money.

    • Agree the MOD announced intention to order 26 more F35Bs but that hasn’t come to any actual order yet. I’m guessing the MOD are quite rightly insisting no further orders until the British weapon systems integration has occured. We need meteor, brimstone, spear3 all able to be deployed from our F35B fleet.

      • Well if they are they are playing a game & hoodwinking the public as they know it will be a long time before LM get the F35B up to a position to integrate thaose weapons systems …a long long long long.. well you get my drift.

  24. Going out on a limb here guys but why not just say right F35B hand over to the RAF ,Navy to buy F35c and be done with it .Sure RAF would make good use of F35B from land like the old Harrier specially now going back to old cold war days tactics . And stop going in circles .Or is it because we can’t afford any F35 what ever version 🤔 , Better get myself to the pub now gugs out the way 🤗 🇬🇧 🍺.

    • There isn’t the money to operate and maintain two F-35 variants. Given how small the two fleets would be just not feasible. We scrapped the Harriers to go from 3 fast jet types (Typhoon, Tornado and Harrier) to 2 so realistically I can’t see us going back to 3 (Typhoon/Tempest, F-35B and F-35C).

  26. Is the stingray uav mentioned the Boeing Stingray? If so that’ll be good. Hopefully price will come down from the current £120 million a copy.

  27. If you decide to build an aircraft carrier, make it compatible with others in NATO, otherwise it’s just a helo landing deck.

    • You mean make it compatible with the USN, the French and eventually the Indians, as opposed to compatible with the USMC, the Italians, the Japanese, the South Koreans and eventually the Spanish? Well, there will always be pros and cons.

      Looking forward at the technology trajectory of UAVs, I think we got it broadly right.

  28. Retrofit of cats and traps to the QE carriers? After all that’s been said amd done, and the huge extra cost of having cats and traps retrofitted rather than built in …. you’ve got to be kidding.

    So much for strategic planning!

  29. The article talks about having the ability to launch both manned and unmanned aircraft……..now in order to do that you are looking at installing emals….plus arrestor wires capable of recovering such aircraft…..
    That will be very expensive, why the hell bother? Just make sure we order enough F35Bs and have dome with it!!

  30. For those who haven’t read it yet, I recommend a recent article in Naval News on creating a future uncrewed US fleet, from an interview with a senior RAND design engineer, Dr Savitz. He seems to be recommending future US carrier strike groups be based around multiple, smaller, conventionally powered UAV carriers, with tankers and solid support ships.

    Could we sell them on a couple of hybrid QE class, or do you think they’ll want to go the full Anadolu?

    He’s also saying that high powered catapults that can accelerate UAVs in ways that human bodies can’t tolerate will allow UAVs to work off shorter length runways. I wonder if that’s what the RN has in mind? I think that will be a bit chicken and egg, with the UAVs not coming until after the catapult investment.

    navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/11/rand-what-the-u-s-navy-really-needs-by-dr-scott-savitz/

    • The USN prefers the big stick carrier approach. Nuclear powered and 100,000+ tons.
      The fact you could get 3-4 QEC class ships for the price of one Ford and deploy 2x the airwing size of a Ford class is lost on them.
      The USN could overwhelm the PLAN if they had a fleet of 30 QEC rather than 10-11 nuclear powered strike carriers.

  31. We are governed by utter idiots,and that trickles down to the chiefs of the armed armed forces just get that into your head and you can see the reasons why we are where we are.

  32. Yet again , our short sighted ,defensively blind .namby pamby ,liberal bean counting government have done it again! Retrofitting these carriers will cost much more than fitting them in the first place and take the carriers out of service for that period# Idiots all!

  33. I would like to know why the current variant of the QE class was chosen over a cat & trap variant? Surely the latter would have been more flexible for embarked air wing. Installing ‘ski jumps’ in the design really tied down the RN to buying the expensive F35B. The USN developed electro-magnetic catapults, these could have been incorporated in the QE class in the first place. This would have given the RN a choice of buying ‘off the shelf’ aircraft like F18’s or (F35C’s) to be the preferred air wing.

  36. Interesting new this, and like everyone reading it I did an eyeroll when I saw it and exclaimed the same thing you all did -m “Why oh why didn’t we just do this to begin with?”

    One might point to the explosion in numbers, types and relevance of unmanned systems since the carrier design was frozen and they were built, but I’m not sure how much water that carries.

    Ironic really, that carriers that were slated by all and sundry as a too-large vanity project with zero strategic use, are actually in reality, too small to do what we want to do with them.

    The role has changed. It is now about providing strike and recon cover using a mix of manned and unmanned platforms, with the latter also being a mix of atrittable and less-atrittable platforms. It is a move we can all agree makes the QEs a more capable and useful platform to send into harm’s way – it makes it more likely we will actually use them as they are supposed to be used. I’d argue just operating crown jewel F-35s we cannot afford to use much less lose makes the carriers a bit wishy washy, they are much more threat than promise. Reality is we cannot afford to send them into harm’s way to do the difficult stuff because we cannot afford to lose them and if we do, we cannot afford to replace them. Drones not only multiply the force the F-35 can project off the QE deck, but also the force of the QE battleforce as well – they can do things we wouldn’t or couldn’t use the F-35 for.

    That we cannot adequately support or protect such an endeavour against a near peer or peer adversary is by the by but they are working on that.

    It does raise some interesting questions.

    Might we look at selling our F-35Bs to replace with the more capable C model? Or might we look at operating both side by side? Or even transferring the Bs to a shore-based strike role for the RAF, specialising in austere ops in places like, I dunno, Estonia…. ?

    Or could the powers that be be looking at the juicy prospect of binning off the manned fast jet capability for the QEs and just loading them up with strike, recce and CAS drones of various types, citing a lack of room on the ships themselves? Sounds nuts but you know that is how they think and you know it has already been discussed….

    Getting really wacky wild here now, but is there provision in the QE design I wonder to allow a “jumboisation” like we see for passenger vessels sometimes? Where they cut the vessel in two and insert a pre-made hull section, then weld it back together? Could they add a 30m section just aft of midships to add hangar space? That would give you 30m more deck length above for safety margins in handling and spotting, and also a load more space belowdecks for hangar space and supporting infrastructure, as well as for cat and trap real estate. Pretty nuts I know but if we think the QEs are going to have some fairly major surgery in the future to convert them to CATOBAR if the Government bothers to fund it, then I don’t think it is something we can fully rule out, IF the design was smart enough to factor this in. It isn’t as hard as it sounds. I know its less than a 1% chance they actually had the foresight to allow for this in the design, or would consider the extra expense on top of the CATOBAR mods and the surface support to actually protect the thing, but…. you never know.

  37. I’d have thought the main requirement would be to deploy some sort of drone-based replacement / supplement for Crowsnest. Is this envisaged as part of Proteus?

    • It’s all CGI, models and hints at the moment. Proteus will probably be heavy lift, ISTAR and ASW focused. It could branch out over time to encompass new areas, budget willing. It’s even more speculative to guess where.

      I’d hope that Leonardo would want to showcase more than its rotary building skills and Proteus should carry a much better multimode radar than the Thales I-Master found on Watchkeeper and Peregrine (it will be more than 10 times the size of Peregrine after all). However, I doubt it will carry anything powerful enough to call itself AEW by current terms. Possibly Osprey 30 (or 50 at a pinch). Similarly I’d hope that unlike the US Fire Scout it would have some survivability from the off, Leonardo bringing some pretty good expertise in the area with MAPPS and EW. That would be indispensible for AEW, expected to be a prime target.

      Will it be able to spot enemy aircraft beyond a CSG’s horizon? I’d hope that was a given. Comms relay for friendlies? You’d have thought so. IFF and platform recognition as well. Perhaps eventually even sensor fusion. So it will probably grow to have several elements of AEW, just not the power or range. Supplement Crowsnest? Maybe. Repace it? Doubtful.

      I think we’ll have to look to a Crowsnest replacement outside Mojave or Proteus.

      All this is pure speculation on my part.

    • It does seem that MOD seem to be naming all of their new Powerpoint Projects after DH aircraft. Mosquito (came up a couple of years ago), Vampire, Vixen etc.

  39. What a load of codswallop.
    The money isnt there.
    Finally we get an admission we spent 6bn on 2 carriers we wont have enough aircraft for.

  40. It wouldn’t be impossible for a cat capacbility on the main runway anyway. The cat giving a boost to any aircraft take off. Arrestor gear doesn’t preclude vertical landing anyway.

  41. I’m seeing a lot of PowerPoint, but not much else. MoD can’t fund its current commitments, so this whole article feels, to put it kindly, optimistic.

  43. Quite possible to change propulsion to nuclear power as it elongates life of boat as diesel will effectively die soon

  44. flying drones? makes a difference from being sat itI suppose it will be good to actually see those billions of pounds ornaments even at sea. this project ark royal concept shows money will be wasted under labour as much as jit was under the Torieson crazy peoples goofy ideas

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here