The UK government has reiterated that decisions on strike-capable uncrewed aircraft for the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers remain subject to the ongoing Strategic Defence Review, despite growing interest from industry and long-standing planning within the Royal Navy.
In a written answer to Parliament, Minister of State for Defence Maria Eagle said:
“The Strategic Defence Review will inform any requirement for additional strike capabilities for the Queen Elizabeth Class. In the interim, the Royal Navy continues to investigate emerging technologies to understand how they can contribute to enhancing operational advantage.”
Among the technologies being explored are Fixed Wing Autonomous Collaborative Platforms — a reference that industry insiders suggest may include systems such as General Atomics’ Gambit 5, a carrier-capable Uncrewed Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) pitched as a potential complement to the UK’s F-35B fleet.
Speaking about such systems, Eagle added: “Fixed Wing Autonomous Collaborative Platforms have the potential to enhance operational advantage, hence, will be evaluated in collaboration with the Royal Air Force.”
Although no decision has yet been made, UK interest in expanding uncrewed carrier aviation is well established. Under the previous government, then Defence Minister James Cartlidge confirmed that the Queen Elizabeth-class was built with future retrofitting in mind, saying: “The Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers (QEC) were built to allow for capability changes over the lifetime of these ships… and this includes a strong focus on uncrewed air systems.”
Could British carriers soon host advanced jet combat drones?
At last year’s ‘Combined Naval Event’ in Farnborough, Colonel Phil Kelly, Royal Navy Head of Carrier Strike and Maritime Aviation, outlined this vision under the banner of the Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) and its internal “Project Ark Royal”. He warned of current limitations, stating: “F-35 mass will not reach level required to resource both QEC with full Combat Air potential.”
He argued for automation and uncrewed platforms to fill this gap, stressing the need to:
“Increase our range, endurance, and persistence in order to build advantage.”
General Atomics, builder of the MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-20 Avenger, has been vocal in promoting their Gambit 5 as a candidate to meet these emerging UK requirements.
“We’ve been thinking of this as a new concept we’re calling Gambit 5, designed for carrier launch and recovery,” said company spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley.
“It could be ISR-focused, like Gambit 1, or some kind of hybrid.”
The platform builds on 15 years of UCAV experience, including 37,000 flight hours with the MQ-20. General Atomics touts its capability in navigation, autonomy, and relative positioning as essential for future carrier-based drone operations.
While no firm procurement decision has been made, the Ministry of Defence’s answers — and the volume of supporting activity from industry, Parliament and Navy leadership — make clear that options to expand the combat reach of Britain’s carriers remain a serious area of development. As Eagle concluded:
“Decisions on future capabilities are subject to the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review, which is looking at the threats we face and the capabilities we need to meet them.”
Evaluations,review’s coalition of the willing! How about we actually get on and DO something instead of blah blah and then have anther review on the previous one🙄
This is all very positive, It’s acknowledging the future requirements and developing systems to counter the perceivable threats both domestically and abroad. Proof that the UK Royal Navy Carrier capability can fulfil it’s promise to protect and serve the population in the age old way we have become accustomed to.
“Keeping an even keel in the roughest of seas”.
You would hope that we could get something from BAE’s ACP program so we don’t have to rely on General Dynamics for anything else.
They’ll hide behind the SDR as long as they can.
Fact is, not a single new new ship, plane, helicopter, Armoured vehicle gas been ordered beyond what was already in the program.
“ subject to the ongoing Strategic Defence Review” I’m really not sure what is going on with the SDR, but I have my suspicions..I think everyone is Now essentially acknowledging that nato is moving to a fudged 5% GDP floor by 2032…fudged but still 5%. The fudge is each nation will need to spend 3.5% GDP on direct defence..then another 1.5% on wider security and defence ( donations to Ukraine..defence industrial development spending etc )..word on the street this is coming at the 25th June Hague NATO summit ( and word is it’s probably already settled and agreed..to keep the US in Europe). So there is no way the government is likely to publish an SDR based on 2.5% GDP until 2030 just before nato sets a hard 3.5% +1.5% floor for 2032…. I think it’s being re written to the likely new NATO floor and I think it’s going to be the biggest shift since the end of the Cold War and the peace dividend, I think this is why we are suddenly getting left field oddities like 2000km + medium/intermediate range ballistics missiles and KRH suddenly looking like they will stay a MBT regiment after all…I predict it will drop just after the NATO summit..so that’s my bet.
I’d thought before Whitsun recess, so they can bugger off and avoid awkward questions.
If it was not for NATO I would go with you but I honestly think it’s because they know what is coming in the NATO summit and they don’t want to look like idiots when they publish is defence review that says 2.5% is fine for the risk and a month later NATO comes out and says it’s a new Cold War and we have to prepare to fight Russia and china, everyone start spending 5%… it would be an impossible sell to the public in the best of times but if a month before they just published all this bump why 2.5% was fine it would be impossible to sell.
As is I honestly think Jo pubic is in for a shock when he’s informed it’s back to the 1970s and he better practice taking his internal doors off in five mins flat propping them against an internal wall.. as well as the fact the UK is going to have to somehow find an extra 70 billion for defence and security in today’s money by 2032…
Mate. I always respect your views and your positivity. I hope you’re right.
@ Daniele, fingers crossed, at some point the geostrategic “we are heading to a world war if nothing changes” penny has to drop and I’m hoping this years NATO summit is the penny dropping moment.
Also the BBC are reporting that essentially the government spending review is going to be a bloodbath and they are chucking every penny at defence and the NHS and that pretty much every other department is going to be torched.. the bbc are saying the new Whitehall joke is that government will be the NHS and the army and that’s it.
I’d read that, yes.
I SO hope you are right, but my bet is that it will come to nothing. Yes, on June 25 there will be strong words about standing up to Putin, spending more and pulling our weight, but I can’t see Starmer, Macron, et al, carrying it through. It isn’t in any of their natures to be decisive and they haven’t got the money to do it.
Starmer has shown with the Chagos fiasco that he doesn’t care about this country or the defence thereof. He will fiddle round the edges with some working-up of detailed plans and lots of evaluations and promises of jobs. All designed to let time pass, in the hope that Wilkins Micawber was right and that, “Something will turn up,” to get him off the hook.
I SO hope you are right.
Things are smelling very different, there are so many reports by people that really know that the NATO 5% ( 3.5% +1.5%) is the real deal..there is lots of running around with industrial partners on how to massively increase the UK and European military industrial capacity..even the BBC are reporting that the Rachel reaves spending review is turning into a bomb fire of department budgets all to feed massive uplifts in defence and NHS spending. As a watcher of both defence and health I smell massive change in the air.
Always evaluating, instead of using the best of what’s available now and evaluating in the background what’s going to replace it. Come the day we are at war all we’ll be able to field is a force of evaluations, case studies and proof of concepts. Never mind though, plenty of industries will have profited from these never ending evaluations.
Exactly. Which is their primary aim. Channeling pork to their mates.
In a not so fantasy fleet, a load out I would love to see for the QE class is as follows.
1x Squadron of 16 F35B
1x Squadron of 10 fighter drone
2x Squadron of 10 bomber drones
1x Squadron of 5 AWCS drones
51 total aircraft
So the ramp is removed and an angled flight deck installed. 2x
EMALS are installed and the F35B take off as ramp less as the US marines do. From what I have researched the F35B can take off with full fuel and full air to air load out.
F35B would be solely for carrier air defense. With 500nm range and rapid take off that would be perfect. Fighter drone would support them or do long range CAP while F35b does med/short range CAP.
Other 2 squadrones are strike drones, 1000nm range and ideally around 10,000lb carry weight and full fuel.
Fighter and bomber drone are the same design but fighter will have shorter range due to AESA radar and ISTAR loadout to support fighters. Bombers will just be bomb and missile trucks.
Absolutely fantasy fleet. Forget catapults
Interesting. I do think we indeed need£ to plan not too far hence (arguably fast approaching) when F-35 simply won’t offer the range to be a serious strike platform against the likes of China, or Chinese supplied adversaries. India’s recent experience against Pakistan doesn’t bode well entering the conflict with what they deemed a superior combination of Rafale and Meteor v J-10 with PL15 missile with a range thought to be 145km much shorter than Chinas own versions. India thought they were out of range only to lose 6 (though not confirmed) including 3 Rafale that didn’t know what hit them apparently and no reports of any Pakistani losses, Israeli supplied drones also fell victim too. If these reports are true (and India has done little to refute them) then we better hope it was superior Pakistani training, intelligence and situational awareness but China seems to be quietly crowing. High Mach air to air missiles with 500km range and far longer ground launched systems isn’t a great prospect for F-35s with 500 odd mile ranges and no stand off weaponry to speak of, let alone risks to the carriers themselves if 2000 km missiles prove effective which I previously questioned but less so of late.
No the ski-jump allows the F35B with a greater load-out. The reason why the USMC Harriers and F35Bs take-off vertically is that if they installed ski-jumps they would lose helicopter spots on their assault ships. That would undermine the ships primary mission, helicopter assault.
(There is also the theory that the USN won’t allow ski-jumps for fear the assault ships would be viewed as aircraft carriers by politicians, resulting in the number of Nimitz/Ford class vessels being cut.)
Probably the most sensible post ever in the history of sensible posts ever on this site.
“You’re new here, yes ?”
There won’t be any major announcements of new acquisitions until the SDR is announced.
The SDR won’t see the light of day until after the Government’s Spending Review.
But the Chancellor’s changes to her fiscal rules means that while money is incredibly tight on operational budgets, she has up to £100billion to spend on capital projects. While some will be thrown at projects in the departments suffering operational cuts, some extra money will undoubtedly be going to defence.
Why not CAT’S by EMALs’, for assisted F-35B take-off? And VL
or SRVL just for landing only? Yes remove the ramp, and angled deck, would need an VL area in the rear.