The Ministry of Defence’s latest written answer provides a clearer sense of direction for Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing, even if some uncertainty over timing remains.

In response to concerns raised after the MoD’s annual report referred to a ‘Rolling Vertical Landing’ upgrade cancellation, the Minister of State noted that “Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) for the UK’s F35B Lightning aircraft to Queen Elizabeth Class carriers has not been cancelled; it has been reprofiled as a Defence Choice so that fitting the capability aligns with the introduction of a related complex weapons programme.”

A second line in the same answer added that this shift is “not expected to have an adverse impact on overall Carrier Strike or F35B capability.”

Taken together, the explanation more likely suggests a realignment due to budget concerns rather than a withdrawal. The carriers’ current configuration backs up that reading. HMS Prince of Wales retains several features installed for the early SRVL trials. HMS Queen Elizabeth, however, has not received the Bedford Array landing aid during her ongoing refit, even though that had once been expected for this maintenance period. That omission reflects a deliberate decision to pause near term integration while leaving the option in place for a later phase.

SRVL’s advantage becomes more relevant when planning for heavier and more complex long range stores. These were part of the original concept of operations, but their development and introduction have moved to the right. If SRVL is now intended to line up with the arrival of a future, heavier and expensive weapon, the sequencing is consistent with the operational logic. But only if.

What is SRVL?

Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing, or SRVL, is a carrier landing method that lets jets touch down with greater weight by combining forward motion with vertical thrust. Instead of slowing to a hover, the aircraft keeps some speed on approach so its wings generate lift while the engine provides controlled thrust. This combination allows pilots to land safely without discarding fuel or weapons before reaching the deck.

The process occurs on an aircraft carrier at sea and blends elements of both vertical and conventional landings. The jet rolls onto the deck with forward momentum, uses wing lift to stay stable, and relies on vertical thrust to settle precisely. The technique is especially valuable for aircraft like the F-35B because it supports returning to the ship at higher all-up weights.

Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

15 COMMENTS

  1. It’s possible that it’s not needed for the limited weapon choice that is currently available and that as the integration of the more advanced weapons has been delayed, so has the capability for utilising them. This would align with the statement.

    I’m giving the MOD as much string as possible here, as I suspect the truth is affordability reasons.

    • Whether or not It’s still a thing, the Pilots will still need to practice at some point. It’s been proven possible and entirely doable now so It’s another capability in the bag.

      • True but they will also need to practice with the new weapons, so I guess the thinking could be to combine the 2. Being generous here.

      • SRVL hasn’t ben proven.

        The last series of trials were cancelled when PoW developed a defect and didn’t get to the East Coast of the US for the trials.

        So they’re still outstanding….and were necessary to start extending the envelope. Only 2 pilots have undertaken SRVL to date, both are test pilots. Neither are with the RN, 1 was but believe he has gone Civvy now.

        And that’s before we actually make it an operational technique and train other pilots on it…

        And without heavier weapons there still just isn’t the need for it…now…or until 2035 at the earliest…right now the max UK weapons loadout on F-35 is c5,000lbs (2 Asraam, 2 Amraam, 2 internal Paveway IV and 4 external Paveway IV). Even in 2035 the max planned load out will only be c6,500lbs (2 Asraam, 2 Meteor, 8 internal Spear, 4 external Paveway 4) and neither of those loadouts is a likely one to be carried…

        Until FCASW gets integrated, the RN/RAF buys 1,000lb JDAM or external tanks are integrated and operational we just don’t need SRVL…

        Hopefully it won’t die a death in the interim like HRAS…

  2. So many projects are reporting delays. You would not think that a war rages in Europe. However, the Treasury can’t wait for a Ukrainian peace deal, so it can take a knife to the MOD’s budget. Sadly, a peace deal will likely see an increase in Russian activity endangering UK undersea infrastructure and a possible build-up of drone incursions. One thing is for sure: a massive Russian rebuild of its defences will possibly be far greater than we think. The brutal truth will result in a considerable increase in the UK forces budget, or we will be faced with a potential enemy that could dwarf anything Europe can field.

    • It is a difficult situation to spend increased money on defence for a war that may or may not come. The Russian’s have the advantage of knowing when their defence spending needs to peak because they’ll be the ones starting hostilities, presumably. People in Russia probably have the same concerns as us: Ivan would rather that his babushka gets her hip replacement, for example. On the other hand, nobody likes being thrown out of windows or sent to work camps so the authoritarian state have more tolerance for defence spending.

      On the plus side, Europe has more people and is considerably more affluent than Russia so we don’t need to spend as much per head on defence to be secure. What is required though is better coordination and burden sharing within Europe. If everyone is spending a reasonable percentage of GDP on defence then others don’t have to spend 6% because some are spending much less than the recommended target.

  3. The really interesting question is the identity of this ‘related complex weapon programme’.
    Pollard seemed very noncommittal on FC/ASW, but maybe he was saving it for the DIP?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here