A recent House of Lords exchange shed light on the future of the UK’s aircraft carriers.
During the discussion, Lord West of Spithead, a former First Sea Lord, highlighted the strategic importance of the UK’s two aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
Speaking on their value to the Royal Navy’s operations, he asked whether the government’s plans would ensure these carriers are equipped with the right aircraft to fulfil their roles over their expected 50-year lifespan.
“My Lords, we have two aircraft carriers, which will last for some 50 years. Will the Minister confirm that, in this package of air capability—which we absolutely need and do not have enough of—some aircraft will have the capability of operating from those carriers?” he questioned.
Responding, Lord Coaker, Minister of State for Defence, acknowledged the importance of matching air capabilities to the carrier fleet.
He noted that, “I certainly believe that the noble Lord is right to point out that, if we have aircraft carriers, we need aircraft to operate from them. I accept that. As far as the defence review is concerned, there is no doubt that we will look at the future capabilities we need, in respect of how those carriers are deployed and where they should be deployed, but also in respect of the necessary air combat power we need to meet the threats that the noble Lord will know well—as indeed will the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.”
Lord Coaker further highlighted the government’s pledge to reach a defence spending target of 2.5% of GDP.
The conversation also touched on international partnerships, with Baroness Smith of Newnham pointing out the UK’s involvement in the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) alongside Italy and Japan. She asked about the possibility of bringing in other countries to strengthen resilience within NATO.
Lord Coaker confirmed that while the UK is currently focused on this trilateral partnership, discussions about including other allies are ongoing, stressing that “Interoperability is key.”
He noted that various NATO members are developing their own advanced fighter projects, and ensuring these systems can work together remains a priority for the UK.
The former First Sea Lord asks: Will the Minister confirm that, in this package of air capability—which we absolutely need and do not have enough of—some aircraft will have the capability of operating from those carriers?”
I can confirm to Lord West that we have already some aircraft that have the capability of operating from those carriers. But he should know that.
Should he not have asked a question about the size and timing of the Tranche 2 order for F-35B, about further F-35B orders or what aircraft will operate from the carriers after the end of the F-35B era?
Errr, actually he did. Try reading it again and look at the subtext. He says with any upcoming aircraft package purchase can you confirm that there will be more aircraft for the carriers because right now we don’t have enough. He’s also saying the RAF also need more aircraft which is pretty generous for a former 1SL. He also isn’t wrong on either count. The minister in his reply said that for former 1SL was right but clearly wasn’t going to commit to anything before the upcoming defence review which we all are dreading being about cutting money from defence… Read more »
Great summary. Yes I thought the fellow asking the question was exceptionally polite and the other fellow essentially batted him off whilst agreeing with him. Realistically I feel that there will be a degree of flexability wrt where out f-35’s are utilised. As others have speculated, I think that routinely we will be looking to have 12 deployed on one carrier with 24 for special circumstances. I understand that at one point 36 being deployed was mentioned, but I cannot see this being feasible for a while. I think the fight will be around how frequently we are to deploy… Read more »
so….we may have aircraft on them, but they may not all be ours …and Tempest will be amalgamated with other 6G fighter progams( *cough France)- Or is that just my chronic cyncism appearing again?
The first part yes and it is something we have done before and to be perfectly honest that was part of the reason for their design. Being able to operate in concert with NATO allies is actually a pretty sound operational strategy. The US have also operated aircraft from the CdG and the French from a US CSG. We also did the same when we had Cats and Traps carriers. Tempest is an interesting one from the sound bite it could mean that or that it was key to include things like the F-35’s advanced data links so that the… Read more »
>we may have aircraft on them, but they may not all be ours That is the reality. The UK is very unlikely to ever have enough F-35B’s for both GEC carriers to routinely operate with 24 aircraft embarked (with surges to 30-36), as was envisaged in the 2000’s. The RN has long accepted that 12 UK-owned aircraft is a more realistic objective, with very occasional surges to 24. I was hoping in 2021 that a USMC F-35B squadron would regularly constitute part of their air group, but sadly that is clearly not happening. If other close allies (Italy, Japan, maybe… Read more »
It was never in the doctrine to have 2 fully equipped carriers operating routinely. Plan from the start is to have 1 available at all times (albeit not quite fully equipped yet) but with enough capability to carry out the duties needed.
If we end up in a massive Nato conflict the US would no doubt be on board regardless with its own F35B’s.
Drone tech has undoubtedly moved on vastly quicker than most would have thought 20 years ago which ironically plays into the capacity of having the two carriers.
The RN’s Maritime Enterprise Planning Group, which oversees UK naval planning and strategy, has been asked to consider the implications of selling one of the carriers. Probably just a prudent “nothing is off the table” type study of options by the SDR review team, but worrying enough for someone to risk leaking it to the newspaper’s.
I believe the word ‘implications’ should be replaced with the term ‘cost savings’
To pay for more uneconomic immigrants or the train drivers pay rise for next year or buying French electricity?
I wouldn’t overly worry about one of the carriers being sold off…. We need both to maintain the ability to deploy one at short notice… with one, as per the French, it spends half its life in dockyards/not in service…. But then again, in this increasingly more fraught world, I never thought we’d give back Diego Garcia!
Realistically, who would we even sell one to? The only 2 countries that have the aircraft to operate and the capability to project power are Italy and Japan, and they both have their own carrier programs sorted already. Maybe South Korea would take one, but they’d need to buy F-35Bs, which aren’t currently on order. Spain could buy it, but their Harriers are probably shagged by this point so they’d need new aircraft. If it got arresting gear, it could maybe operate Mig-29Ks with the Indian navy. Ultimately, anyone who wants to and can operate a carrier, already is (or… Read more »
It would be strategically nuts to sell off one of the carriers. It was never the plan or intention to have both carriers operational at the same time. There aren’t the crew, the aircraft, the escorts, the Merlins, the RFAs etc to form a second carrier strike group. Rather, the role of the second carrier is as a reserve. Should the operational carrier be damaged or lost in action, the reserve carrier would put to sea with whatever reserve crew and escorts could be found. Having a reserve capability is a key military tenet. Problem is that the politicos and… Read more »
For a long time I have wondered why the US allowed the UK to build these carriers The US isn’t short of large aviation decks the West. It is useful if the Europeans have CVS for to enable helicopter operations beyond the scale allowed by frigate flight decks say TG screening. But there was no for Europe to have strike carriers. Especially as the West is short of escorts and boats. The only reason I could come up with was that somebody over there saw the need as an adjunct to DARPA’s ASTOVL/CALF program a carrier dedicated to STOVL aircraft.… Read more »
Well, that was better out than in wasn’t it?
Perhaps you could suggest where we go from here?
I must have missed something along the way. Since when does the UK need the US’s permission to build aircraft carriers? Rather, I would think the US would welcome them into the NATO force. Of course, the US would naturally assume that the UK wouldn’t build two aircraft carriers if it didn’t intend to purchase the aircraft to go along with them.