In this guest article, Stuart Dee and Charlotte Kleberg summarise the challenges ahead for Royal Navy aviation.
This year marks the centenary of the UK’s Fleet Air Arm (FAA), one of the five fighting arms and the naval aviation component of the Royal Navy (RN). The FAA supports the UK’s global power projection ambitions through carrier strike. However, evolving cost and capability pressures raise questions about the force’s future direction. In the short term, limitations on the availability of F-35Bs to fulfil its carrier strike role are driving the RN to rethink the design of the carrier air wing concept. The RN is exploring options for a hybrid wing that combines crewed and uncrewed platforms to optimise capability, reduce costs, and maintain operational flexibility.
Yet, with growing pressure for defence to refine its operational focus and an anticipated increased NATO first tilt in the upcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR), does the UK’s retention of an independent carrier strike capability make sense in the medium term? For the FAA to reach its second centenary, it will need to demonstrate its relevance in innovative and transformative ways.
A proud history
The story of the FAA began after World War I, when the RN first recognised the strategic potential of aircraft in naval operations. Although naval aviation had been explored as early as 1912, the FAA truly took shape in the 1920s and 1930s with its formal establishment as part of the Royal Navy’s Air Branch. The UK fielded the world’s first purpose-built carrier, HMS Hermes, in 1924, and the vital contributions of aircraft carriers and their air wings during World War II are well documented.
The post-war era saw continued advancements, including the introduction of the Sea Harrier in the 1970s, which enabled the FAA to operate from smaller carriers and amphibious assault ships, significantly enhancing the UK’s expeditionary naval aviation capabilities. Despite challenges in the 1980s and 1990s, including ageing aircraft and limited carrier availability, by 2018 the F-35Bs were operating on newly commissioned aircraft carriers alongside helicopters providing essential anti-submarine warfare, search and rescue, and surveillance capabilities.
Aircraft carriers & maritime aviation transformation
At the core of the FAA’s operational capability are its aircraft carriers. Carriers remain invaluable tools for blue-water navies, establishing sea control and projecting power on the high seas. They provide the FAA with the foundation of its raison d’être, and the UK’s commissioning of two modern carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, in 2017 and 2019 respectively, seemed to herald a clear future role for the FAA in the decades to come. However, a combination of repeated teething problems during the carriers’ early operational lives and well-documented cost and availability challenges with the F-35B—the UK’s chosen F-35 variant—has raised questions about the true potency of the UK’s carrier strike capacity in real terms.
The lived reality of the F-35B and QE-class carrier capability mix also highlights another uncomfortable aspect of the FAA’s future. It continues to rely on a mixed fleet of RAF- and RN-operated F-35Bs to field a viable carrier strike wing and depends on joint RAF capabilities, such as fast jet training and maritime patrol aircraft through the P-8 Poseidon, to assure maritime security from the air domain. For critics, this taken together with the fact that the FAA’s F-35s are technically RAF-budgeted assets operated through jointly crewed squadrons, presents a cost rationalisation opportunity through force consolidation.
To its considerable credit, the RN has ‘grasped the nettle’ of the FAA’s future viability and purpose through proactive efforts to redesign and reshape it via the Maritime Aviation Transformation effort.
The FAA is actively exploring uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) to enhance its operational capabilities, with various UAS tests planned for the Carrier Strike Group 2025 deployment to the Indo-Pacific. In 2023, the RN successfully conducted tests with UAS alongside fifth-generation fighters, including the launch and landing of a pilotless aircraft on HMS Prince of Wales and the Mojave unmanned aerial vehicle becoming the largest uncrewed aircraft to operate from an RN carrier. Part of the RN’s vision for future maritime air and wider Maritime Aviation Transformation initiative is Project Ark Royal, which would involve the retrofitting of QEC carriers to accommodate high-performance UAS.
ALRE-QEC-CarrierBy integrating UAS capabilities into its carrier operations the RN aims to reduce costs, extend operational reach, enhance combat capabilities, and minimise risks to crew members. With over 40 UAS and 300 uncrewed systems currently in operation, the RN is poised to scale up its Fleet Air Arm, integrating autonomous systems for surveillance, strike missions, and resupply. In the future, developmental UAS platforms like Vixen, Proteus, and Panther and other aspirational projects and initiatives in support of the maritime aviation transformation such as a fixed-wing UAS to replace the Merlin-based Crowsnest, could demonstrate a vision wherein the FAA looks to expand its fleet of both advanced and smaller systems.
Together, these developments demonstrate that the RN is actively considering the FAA’s relevance as a future fighting force and will prepare a strong case for the SDR to retain the UK’s maritime strike capability. This argument will likely emphasise its additive capacity for a NATO strike force and its importance to the UK’s Indo-Pacific ambitions.
Looking ahead
Future considerations for the carrier air wing are largely shaped by the limitations of the F-35 and the inevitable transition to uncrewed platforms. Looking ahead, the hybrid carrier air wing concept could become a cornerstone of the FAA’s strategy. Combining crewed aircraft with complementary UAS will reduce risks to personnel, expand operational reach, enhance capabilities, and provide increased combat mass and lethality. This approach will also offer the flexibility to meet a range of missions, from high-intensity combat to humanitarian relief.
While crewed aircraft will remain central to complex missions requiring human decision-making and oversight, UAS will complement these platforms by taking on tasks that are too risky, monotonous, or costly for crewed aircraft. Roles are likely to expand beyond electronic warfare, surveillance, aerial refuelling, and related logistical tasks to include combat and strike roles. In addition to increasing combat mass and persistence, UAS will help the FAA manage operational costs and, in the long term, enable greater flexibility due to their ability to operate from a range of surface ships.
The FAA can reflect on a proud history but faces an uncertain future. Despite the public debate surrounding the challenges of the UK’s carrier capability, the QE-class carriers are an unlikely target of the SDR. As a significant investment in UK industrial capability that is naturally maturing, their forward running costs are likely to be relatively modest, and their removal would signal a dramatic shift in UK strategic ambition.
The FAA’s future will be shaped by its response to innovation, particularly through the smart integration of UAS, and its ability to demonstrate the additive capacity it provides to broader UK ambitions and NATO capabilities. This is especially pertinent as the US, France, Italy, and Turkey field their own carrier strike capabilities in various forms. Fielding a differentiated carrier strike capability in the Indo-Pacific will also be crucial to advancing the UK’s regional ambitions.
The FAA’s ability to defend its raison d’être will likely hinge on its capacity to innovate and demonstrate its specialism in areas such as surveillance, electronic warfare, and logistics within the complex naval aviation operating domain. If executed effectively, the sky could indeed be the limit for the FAA in its second century, but the coming months will be crucial.
It was a surprise when Gordon Brown green lighted the QECs.
Many RN senior staff had expected fixed wing to end with the Invincibles as Brown had frustrated previous attempts by Blair to order them.
The main thing is to get the F35B up to the mid 70’s with another order of ca 24 frames which the grown up have already budgeted for.
Ideally planning for a further buy to give real mass as well as the ability to support two enduring taskings.
As I’ll say like a broken record the cost of doubling capability isn’t double as lots of the moving parts are paid for if not fully resourced.
Absolutely fully resourcing carriers is essential but the big problem is manpower and retention of said manpower. Pay and conditions need to be increased across all three services to attract more recruits and improve conditions to retain personal.
Efforts should be made to get people back in to the services that are already trained if they’ve been absent for two years then possibly filling in the gap in their pension may help.
It was good to see you RFA pay dispute coming to an end. The RFA is vital if the navy wishes to be a global power and therefore any pay the military get should be passed on also to the royal fleet observary.
auxiliary
Blair saw himself as President of a United States of Europe. He wanted carriers. And the sop to Brown was jobs for Scotland. That Blair knew next to nothing about carriers or ships is just typical of most leading politicians these days.
It isn’t just getting airframe numbers up it is all a matter of weapons integration. A naval platform needs a heavy AShM for example. I ignore all the w@nk!ng off here over SPEAR because it is obvious those who talk about that missile know the square root of nothing about the topic.
What will hamper FAA operations is a lack of ASaC system. I see the French are getting E2D whereas we barely have enough cabs to get lacklustre Crowsnest lofted. The air fight today is all about long range BVR missiles to multiply the benefits of stealth. Most of the world is still flying 4th gen and 3rd gen fighters. If we are sending a small number of stealth planes to sea we need to leverage everything we have. Croswnest can’t do that.
Carriers were always on the replacement for the Invincible class.
This ‘President’ Blair stuff is just hokum. “Europe” is like herding cats and always was.
Nato was the big cheese as far as military forces go and it was US who was top of the perch there and THAT suited Blair and his predecessors just fine.
The Carriers arent the expensive part of the naval fleet- ask about the costs of the Dreadnoughts
Each boats capital cost is about the same as a single carrier – with billions just going into the reactor program and its ongoing costs plus the cost of the warheads and the Trident missile purchase and ongoing costs
The cost of the UK’s strategic nuclear deterrent
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8166/CBP-8166.pdf
Rubbish re Blair. He wanted large strike carriers for prestigious. We would have been better off with something Cavour size or preferably something like Makin Island. Played to our strengths and sensibly sized groups of fast air. Blair wanted the EU Presidency.
And then you once more ramble off in to territory I never even mentioned.
Well done X.
???????
The fact that Brown’s constituency was next door to Rosyth shipyard was, of course, coincidental. It has been said that the only time Brown visited the MOD was to push for the carriers to be built there.
Chancellor of the Exchequer doesnt decide military capability..Lol.
Rosyth was the only place with the large graving dock …where the modules were assembled
You dont seem to be aware the ships modules were BUILT at 6 different sites by four different companies
At least get the facts right. Zookeeper knows better but just makes it up- as even his ‘smaller carrier’ would still need to be assembled at Rosyth!
This is BAE yard at Govan… Do you know where that is ?
Another of Gordon Browns Constituency’s?
The list of places modules were built is
A&P Tyne
Appeldore Devon
BAE Portsmouth
BAE Govan
Cammel Laird Birkenhead
Babcock Rosyth
Great article, so many things we can all argue about I’m sure.
Would love to know the projected costs for project Ark Royal, Is it doable or just another of those pipe dreams ?
Both probably !
It is both.
Cutting up QECs main decks is a seriously bad idea as it will take them out of deployability for ages and the costs could balloon.
The small catapult by the ramp is a better idea as that could be done using an over deck and not cutting up the main deck. The arrestor wires are an issue as they would have to go on the main deck – it is doable.
If we were going to spend the kind of cash that a main deck catapult system would cost then a big pile of F35B and munitions would be far more useful and cost certain way of spending that money for a very well defined output. It is far easier to ramp up something you have the to start afresh.
This is why I always argue against the calls to throw F35B out the window and install Catobar/buy new jets. Would we not be better investing all that money in increasing and enhancing what we have. And this Ark Royal program seems to have zero use right now as there are ve try few if any high end drones close to being ready to deploy off carriers
You could launch and recover a Biplane or Seafire type Aircraft off a QE with no need to adapt it that much. All that’s missing is a modern day equivalent. We had many decades before C & T’s.
Not a replacement or supplement for lack of F35s
No, I agree but as we are nowhere near being able to fill them in the way they were designed, having a few smaller additions isn’t such a bad Idea.
Has anyone ever tried with tailwheel landing gear over a ski ramp?
I always imagined the MQ9B as a modern day Swordfish, at least in role.
Morning, Fairey Barracuda’s were launched from a basic ramp during WW2, they were quite a bit longer and wider than most other single engine’d aircraft at the time. I guess it would have been part of the design criteria at the time. Harriers had a totally different arrangement which probably helped a lot with launching and clearance.
How do you fit an over deck Emals without cutting into the deck ? Is there even such a system ?
Something like the trailer catapult for Vampire or Valkyrie, but fixed to the deck and drawing on the ship’s power supply?
Arrestor gear is harder to do.
Option 1
The EMALS sits on the existing deck surface.
The UAV then runs either on rails or wheels in channels to launch.
Issue is the side forces in high sea states.
Option 2
UAV is launched on a ‘skid’ that separates from the aircraft as it rotates during launch and is then allows to ‘flop’ over the bow but restrained high enough that it doesn’t go into the drink or hit the bow. The ‘skid’ would probably be composite to reduce mass.
Or you make the decision that dropping the skid overboard and using biodegradables is easier than retaining it.
There are very biodegradable composites around but I think you’d need to keep them vac packed so the clock wasn’t ticking on their integrity – which isn’t of itself the largest issue to overcome.
Option 3
Banshee style launch with landing wheels retracted.
There are lots of ways for doing this – some of which have been, at least in part – tested before.
Honestly the landing bit is harder than the taking off bit and getting an automated arrested landing to work with safe margins and bolter space strikes me as the hard part.
Anything launched by the bow will be quite small wingspan so relatively fast to land.
The advantage with the big wide winged UAVs over the bow would be a very low stall speed so very slow relative to deck if say 20kts forward motion and 15kts of windage over the bow. But bigs wings are a real issue in terms of safe deck operational clearances and reduce deck parking zones accordingly.
Hmm, do we go back to the 1950s Flexible Carpet deck?
A Banshee style catapult and no landing gear necessary?
For small jets, the concept had demonstrable advantages over wheeled landings and for drones that can’t move themselves around deck anyway, the requirement to crane them around won’t be a massive issue.
No need for landing gear bays means more fuel and more weapons.
I hadn’t heard about these rubber decks before. Thanks for the education.
I only found out about them reading Eric Brown’s autobiography, because he was the test pilot for the entire programme.
He wrote that the idea allow more efficient storage of aircraft, improved fuel and weapons payload, safer landings and easier repairs to the flexible deck.
But, it needs your entire carrier and aircraft fleet to be equipped with the deck, which is unfeasible for manned fighters.
Drones, however, can be procured over a shorter time period and for less cost and so the risk of converting to the flexible deck is much reduced.
No. The trials 1947 (land-based) and at sea in 1948-49 aboard HMS Warrior should be seen in light of the work by Capt D.R.F. Campbell RN and Lewis Boddington (whose idea flexible decks was) with angled flight decks and Commander C. C. Mitchell’s work with steam catapults and arresting gear.
As can be seen by history, the carriage less aircraft with an aircraft carrier ‘flexible deck’ not all the development work in this period was worthy of further development. The same would apply today.
The aircraft underbody required significant re-enforcement.Damage to the trial aircraft was recorded (wings) during one serial of tests. This would seem to prejudice weapon and fuel carriage on external hard points (note trials were in a. Sea Vampire).With no undercarriage take-off and landings ashore would be limited to airfields with suitable facilities.Rubber deck/carpet sections of the aircraft carrier deck were not suitable for other aircraft operations, and limited the utility of the aircraft carrier as a result (again referring to the modifications of HMS Warrior during her 1948 refit for subsequent trials).Concern with aircraft movements using the carriages, or using aircraft (Jumbo) cranes (note the plural requirement to do anything else other than a single aircraft movement on deck 🙄😄 – hangers also need to be considered) in anything else than a benign sea.The Banshee/Vampire launcher is no substitute for a proper EMALS catapult installation for any aircraft – manned or unmanned – which needs payload weight for weapons and/or fuel; hence project ARK ROYAL (if it ever gets green lit for installation and operations) which also included arresting gear. The Banshee sized drones do not offer a commensurate operational benefit given their range and payload characteristics vs the risk positioning a carrier for such operations would require. Size matters.
Fair enough.
I thought maybe modern internal weapons carriage would help with the landing shock.
The wings damage was apparently (according to Brown) due to collision with the posts supporting the arrestor gear as the ship rolled.
Movements would be easier with smaller drones, maybe sized for 1x Meteor or 2-4x SPEAR in bays on each side of a single engine. Something like a forklift or pallet lifter could be used under the wing roots, and gantry cranes installed in the hangar (which I think there already are on the QEs).
The XQ-58 Valkyrie drone nearly has the payload above, retains landing gear and can be launched by RATO on a truck-portable rail.
Take the gear bays out and expand the weapons bays and you have what I suggest.
For a 16 year old, your knowledge is staggering, I also admire your immunity here from the usual aggressive “members” who seem to have multiple names (which as we are so frequently reminded, is against the rules).
Good to see a few new posters here now that a few have recently disappeared.
Yes, I think Competent Googler is new, as well as yourself (relatively).
I have been reminded again of how tedious some of the commenters are by having accidentally subscribed to all of the comments under the Project Euston article.
Over the past week I have received “checks notes” one hundred and sixty-six emails, most of them containing some sort of insult or aspersion cast at the object of the reply.
I’ll second that S32. Good on you SB!! Keep going!
No. You thought wrong re internal weapon bays. There would be a greater likelihood of damage to the weapon bay doors from the mechanics of the airframe absorbing the landings forces (instead of the landing gear); especially in the Valkyrie example you gave – The weapons bay is located where a belly-up landing would align – which if I had to co-ordinate onboard, I would dump any munitions prior to attempting, such a landing as a safety precaution.
From an engineering perspective; there is practically zero chance requirements for carriage-less landings would get consideration for inclusion in a requirements specification; especially given such a requirement would recreate additional bespoke ($$$) requirements on the operating platform (aircraft carrier). It is that simple.
Also, the last comment re gear bays on the Valkyrie implies additional drone development to add an additional landing method, to what the drone already possesses – i.e. added costs and likely schedule implications for a sub-par engineered solution (there is a reason the trials 70 odd years ago were not taken further). Again, this would not get past an initial requirements workshop and I would question the credibility of someone going so off scope if I were on such a project.
No you have to have a controlled landing that has defined rules.
There is no fundamental problem with launching from a skid on a catapult and landing on wheels with a tail hook.
The problem is getting a reliable latch on and a safe line so you don’t have to clear a deck or risk £500m of F35B/Merlin getting trashed.
Huh?
The carpet deck is supposed to be easier to catch a wire on than a wheeled landing, at least according to the guy who actually tried it.
There is more predictable bouncing and cushioning from the deck than from suspension legs, and the wire can be suspended higher above the deck, sliding along the bottom of the fuselage before catching the hook.
It led to the original concept for the angled landing deck without crash barrier, and because of the reduced deck space necessary could be fitted for smaller drones without getting in the way of the other air ops.
No, the flexible deck did not lead to the angled flight deck. That egg belongs to jet aircraft with their higher speed.
Never even knew about this.
It could end up being cheaper to build/convert two supplementary catobar ships just for UAVs.
T32 ? It would tick a few boxes “A Platform for automated vehicles” unless of coarse T32 was a mere typo.
More likely USV and UUVs than any substantial aircraft
Yes absolutely just like a WW2 Fleet Carrier but updated to todays Tech.
There were a lot of small carriers back then, 8000 tons some of them.
I’m keen to see how Türkiye fair with their Anodolu.
I do wonder what a modern HMS Audacious or other escort carrier would look like.
Iran’s converted container ship with the reverse angled deck probably isn’t too far off.
A Max Hastings Class carrier?
Atlantic Conveyor, very sadly, taught RN how that ends.
True, but for drones and with modern CIWS the fleet isn’t relying on it to the same extent and it isn’t so vulnerable to single attacks.
I’m not trying to be callous to the dozen or so people who died, but it ended with the retaking of the Falkland Islands. The reason for its demise wasn’t that it was a very hasty conversion (HMS Coventry wasn’t a conversion, hasty or otherwise), it was a lack of AEW and defensive armaments. Given that we currently run a sub-par AEW and send out our fleet carriers without 30mms, without SAMs and even at times without Phalanx, perhaps we are in danger of having drawn the wrong conclusions.
Survivability has to take into account what happens after a hit.
Statistically you will have leakers.
The ship surviving and/or getting the crew off in a good state is a priority. We are not Russia.
Whilst I agree that better CIWS is needed on QEC and maybe even a 45 degree launched Sea Ceptor variant we are in a different place where even a T31 can look after a little flock of STUFT under its Sea Ceptor umbrella.
I would like to see containerised CAMM – it is part of the PODS wish list so not a total armchair fantasy.
We do have a pile of sets of Phalanx which were upgraded not that long ago.
It’s not a case of choosing naval-certified ships over dodgy conversions. Having some less survivable ships is inevitable. Either we build them ahead of time over six to nine months and plug some extra protection in, or we use STUFT, rebuilding them over a couple of weeks and don’t stick the armour around the magazine, like the Conveyor. Which would you rather be sat in? Our Navy is too small for purpose. Heath Robinson will turn up at some point.
Supportive Bloke
Just to point out on the subject of survivabablity; Cunard’s Atlantic Conveyor “probably” did far better structurally than either Sheffield or Coventry- and both of those warships also had properly trained and equipped RN damage control parties on board when they took hits
Conyeyor took two Exocets (one of which, apparently, did not explode) and even then – when its load of completely unprotected stores – (massive amounts of cluster bombs and fuel) went up, even that huge explosion “only” blew the ship’s bows off i.e. it still floated.
Furthermore most of the crew got off. So again, proportionately, crew loses on the big Cunarder were no worse than on those two RN warships
Thus commercial standards of surviability were, even back in the early 1980’s, “pretty good”
———————
As for containised air defence system (AAD) these have been reguarly proposed ever since the late 1970’s
This is the one of the oldest that I could find quickly on the internet: – SCADS from BAe (note 1) in 1990.
SCADS A AND B – TWO VERSIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF PART OF THE LOAD TO WEAPONS SYSTEMS ON CONTAINERSHIPS – TRID
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. Correct use of the little “e” in this case
If T32 means built in Rosyth with next to no budget, perhaps yes; but not built as a GP frigate. I think we have to be flexible to get any capability before the end of the decade, which is why a commercial conversion could be considered alongside new build options. Fix the costs, allow RN ten top level requirements and ask companies what they can provide. Make sure they fit in already available dry docks. Be prepared to order by the end of next year. And I’d say not GA EMALS/AAG, or the catapult will cost more than the ship. If that means a steam generator (as in a generator of steam), then it does.
We’d have to view these as second tier and experimental builds. We can only guess how UAVs will fit in to the FAA in the future because they are evolving so quickly. If these auxiliary carriers lasted more than 20 years, I’d be surprised, and we should look to build any second generation properly once the concepts are better bedded in, or double down on V/STOL only. I’d immediately go back to working on EMCAT EMKIT either way.
Interesting comments there Jon, I take on board what you are saying.
If a T32 is going to be a thing it remains to be seen because here we are 3 or 4 years down the line and there is about as much known about it as there is about the Fire in the Devonshire Dock Hall.
Bit windy here, apparently we are expecting a Whirlwind.
Do we need a specialist trials carrier?
A small through deck designed specifically for testing and proving different kinds of drone and launch arrangement?
You could even fit it with catapults and arrestor gear at the manufacturer’s expense as a means of “proving the technology”.
And which frigate are you going to cancel to pay for this? The QE carriers can be used for most of the tests, as was done with the Mojave drone. For catapults and arrestors, building them on land for testing is the usual way this is done.
All true, I was getting slightly carried away after making the deck plans.
Don’t forget what goes on below the deck. There was a very interesting site that showed all the stages of build including all the blocks coming together. Very busy below deck.
It would be much better than nothing and very much better than cutting up a fleet carrier, but we are really bad at getting manufacturers to pay for their trials on our equipment. We paid a fortune to GA just to let them trial their Mojave on PoW. GA has a lock on EM catapults for the West at the moment, and I can’t think of any other manufacturer that wouldn’t require us investing in R&D, nevermind specualtively paying for the priviledge. (Maybe China 😉.)
Funny you should say that, Rachael Reeves is over there right now.
Maybe it’s all part of the Red Labour’s, (cough) PLAN.
I see your cough and raise you a groan.
I see your Groan, I think I’ll raise you a Smile.
Landing lights still on for Liz Truss as PM I see
Disappointed they were not employed against Houthis and help defend merchants ships. That would state their relevance.
What is the point of having an asset like this and then not using it when there is an occasion?
Maybe we first wanted to test T45’s ability to defend a CSG?
You might just see some action when the CSG has to pass by Yemen again. By all accounts they have been rather active against the USN recently.
Hybrid airwings are not the answer, prioritised use of F35B for carrier ops is. The RAF practically starved the RN of Harriers for ops at sea because it came under a ‘joint force’, time to go back to two separate air arms.
It’s good to talk about Vixen, Proteus and the like, but the Navy has failed even to hand the much smaller Peregrine over to the FAA. If we can’t integrate two Camcopters into the fleet without outsourcing the job, how will we handle the much bigger task of integrating the much larger drones?
All
All of these great promises around magical, supa-dooper, flashy gordon, gucci-kit naval UAV capabilites – i.e. Radio Controlled Model Planes to us in the know – are increasing sounding like the very many promises that were once made, many years ago for self-driving cars by overpaid consultancies:
For example, here is a report, from the RAND corporation – nine years ago!
Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers | RAND
(Note 1)
I.e.
please give us LOTS of R&D loadsofmoney and we (maybe) give you a dollop of jam tomorrow.,..
…. or maybe the yeat after that …
…..or maybe the decade after that ………
These many promises for large fighting UK UAV’s are increasing sounding like B******T
—————–
Then with regards to the potential of UAV’s, for those of you who may have forgotten that we have heard all of this guff before….
Watchkeeper UAV was once the great white hope of British Army. It was going to fly ahead of the Future Rapid Effects System – a light tank to us in the know – and identify targets for long range artillary firing precision muntions – to fire from many furlongs away…..and to hit first time……
So, what happened next?
At the end of last year, the very technologically simple Watchkeeper UAV programme was cancelled: after an expendituire of a cool £1 billion of very scarce taxpayers cash
——————-
Ever since they were first commissioned (timeline reminder = they were floating several years ago), the fundamantal issue with the two UK QE carriers has been the poor availability – and also the pi**-poor weapons capability – of the RN / RAF F35 fleet
Can the Editor please remind us about the RN’s early 2024 New Years Resolution:
…….
for which F35 weapons system would be working by Dec 2024?
(the big word is “integrated”)
Wildcat firing LMMM was THREE YEARS years late…and counting…..
so what is the timeline for handing Peregrine – operational – over to the FAA?
Frankly those responsible for the non-performance of the upgrades of the Uk’s existing aircraft and helicopter fleet capabilities – especially the poor availability (60%) and lack of weapons (i.e. next to none) on the rather expensive F35’s need to be held to account.
Keel hauling: or demotion?????….
————————-
This article is a Si-Fi comic strip…. it is, simply, a distraction from harsh reality
I am sorry to be rude to the two guest authors (from RAND): however I have to ask
Do both of them eventually want to work for Qinetiq’s media / PR department?
Because the real solution to our two carriers woes is definitely not to jump head first for ever more sophisticated, and thus ever more expensive, UNPROVEN technologies
………….and then to cut the two carriers to pieces: to fit in the UAV’s bits…..!!!!!!!
= because that will be jumping out of the frying pan and into the raging fire
Please Please Please…..can the RN and RAF just stop this PR nonsense about UAV’s ….and get some real crewed warplanes into the air: and onto both carriers: ASAFP
Go out and employ some proper engineers…..even if you have to pay for them……
————–
Finally, with regards to the “NATO pivot” expected in the SDR, can I make a suggestion
The RN and RAF really ought to be planning to use both QE carriers up right into the Arctic Ocean to operate in Russia’s backyard… supported by as much land-based aitrpwoer that can be mustard’ed
= because that is where the greatest threat to the UK homeland lives (Russia’s Northern Fleet)
Back to the future: this Arctic stratagy was called the Lehman stratagy back in 1985!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
I really don’t like the undertone here: about RAF/RN infighting. That bodes badley!
Note 1
The RAND Corportion (i.e. authors of this article) were also responsible for a key report on UK naval shipbuilding published eighteen years ago (N-a-B remembers it very well……. but not fondly!!)
Naval shipbuilding in the United Kingdom: RAND Europe research summary | RAND
That report is one of the main reasons why the RN has so few warships at sea today….
TLDNR
Martlet was fired at floating targets from Wildcat in 2021 in the CSG 21 operation. First air-to-air against a Banshee was in summer 2023. The exercise last November was the first air-to-air attack with targetting exclusively provided by the Wildcat.
Perhaps you are thinking of the delays to the Sea Venom firing.
“ I really don’t like the undertone here: about RAF/RN infighting. That bodes badley!”
Usual story – RAF paid for the planes out of its budgets so has the real last word as to priorities.
RAF doesn’t have enough frames for all its tasking so it is genuinely hard to release them for carrier ops.
It isn’t people being difficult it is just that RAF + RN are trying to do a lot of things with 50% of the needed frames.
Situation changes but when you have 72 F35B fleet as you can have a squadron deployed when the carriers go somewhere. And then an annual exercise with 24 frames for a week and a biannual with 36 frames so we remember how to stack them on board.
Not perfect but it is reality knocking.
Unless Santa Robinson delivers a lot of F35B?
An accurate and timely post SB.
If we put the F-35Bs on one side for a moment, the RAF combat air strrngth will shortly be down to just 112 aircraft, its smallest-evet total, and miles smaller than France, Germany. Italy and even Spain can put in the air. Hence the need for them to call on the F-35s.
The problem really stems from the budgetary decision not to replace the Tornado FGR4 and to try to make the Typhoons take on the additional interdiction and SEAD roles for which they were never designed.
It would have been far better to order the longer range, larger payload, better performance and cheaper F-35A for the RAF, leaving the F-35Bs for the FAA and the CAS role supporting ground forces. That is the pattern that Italy and Japan are taking, with A for their air forces and B for their naval aviation and that looks a very sensible plan.
But as usual, we Brits have no money to do anything like that, we just hack the number of combat aircraft down to minimalist numbers and leave the services to wrestle over the scanty few we have.
Looking at the angled deck image for Ark Royal, it is clear that this arrangement leaves a significant amount of space on the port quarter unusable, as well as removing the main deck park to port. Both of these would hugely impact F35 and helicopter landings, as well as overlapping with the run-up for the ski jump.
Is a better solution to go for a CVA-01 type parallel landing deck along the port side, for both arrestor gear, SRVL and helicopters?
That requires a slightly different shape for the sponson extension, but leaves much more length around the centreline and a better run-up to the ski jump, especially if the jump were moved to starboard of the bow rather than to port (the jump is just a metal box, so won’t be very difficult to move).
Additionally, this unlocks a huge amount of deck space next to the islands and on the starboard quarter.
I know that a lot of thought went in to CVA-01, so they must have been doing something right, and the current layout seems to drastically reduce the efficiency for mixed air ops.
I had a go at editing my own deck layout in the style of Navy Lookout:
Looks confused.com.
It actually looks a lot like one of the early options for the QEs, has the same free space aft for a large deck park.
Theirs isn’t angled, though:
“ the jump is just a metal box, so won’t be very difficult to move”
Hmme if only!
It is a very heavy box that would mean adjusting a lot of things.
But also……
If you shift it to starboard then the wind over bow is hitting the islands and I would guess the wind to wing won’t be consistent over the takeoff run which is essential for safe take offs.
I meant wrt the jump that they built it by craning it on board and welding it down, it isn’t structurally part of the deck, so moving it isn’t going to affect anything else.
I see what you mean about the takeoffs.
I’m not sure how important the initial acceleration is, but the actual boost over the jump is symmetrical with the previous position.
The islands themselves are much boxier than the WW2 British carriers, which optimised for smooth airflow and so had rounded bridges.
They take off from about halfway between the islands, about where I put the end of the launch runway.
Well, yes, the ski jump was craned on – as a lot of block were – but that doesn’t mean it weights not a lot nor that it doesn’t sustain large dynamic loads from launch in high sea states nor does it reflect on the substantial substructure that support it.
If you move the runway closer to the islands you hit the disturbed flow right from the zero point.
You are then correcting to start with.
The effect then changes as you as you hit the flow around the ski jump and in from of the island.
You don’t really want any changes of that kind. Every change introduces another risk.
Yes, you can mitigate each risk but the essence of risk management is to get rid of the unnecessary risks if you can. Bad accidents are not usually caused by a single catastrophic failure but by a series of, seemingly, inconsequential failures.
You absolutely cannot compare WW2 carriers with QEC. The ‘rounded’ bits may have looked aero but would have caused terrible vortexing.
The rounded islands were an intentional design feature of RN carriers, to improve aero for landing on.
For the same reason, we didn’t pile our islands with guns and balconies like the Americans, it’s all to improve the pilot experience while the USN prioritised getting lots of planes in the air. Doctrine was different as well, with the RN striking down each aircraft into the hangar between landings and the Americans piling them up forwards to optimise for getting the shortest delay after big airstrikes.
The airflow around the islands does seem to be a problem.
If it makes my design unworkable then so be it, but I still think leaving the massive space to port is a waste of the enormous QE deck. There’s a bit of wiggle room with shifting it back over to port, but then you cut down on the space either side of the ramp which is used both for vehicles and as a deck park at the moment.
“ The rounded islands were an intentional design feature of RN carriers, to improve aero for landing on.”
1940’s ideas of aero and 1990’s are rather different.
One thing doing an airflow test with a few smoke nozzles and a cine camera whilst testing things that looked like they ought to make sense.
Low speed ‘aero’ is actually a rather different science to high speed wind tunnel testing. Relatively recently low speed tunnels were developed for things like cycling teams.
There’s a Naval Gazing article, called “Carrier design and organisational structure” that contrasts the British and US approach to flight ops and the resultant effect on carrier design.
The same effect appeared in round-downs fore and aft on British carriers (because they made airflow clearer for landing on) but disliked by the Americans because they cut down on valuable deck park space.
The doctrine difference is actually still visible today, the RN tend to clear the decks of aircraft during operations with the QEs but it isn’t unusual to see a Hornet landing in the middle of a crowd of other jets.
With my current layout you can clear the decks much quicker after landing, because both hangars and the starboard quarter park are accessible after turning out of the arrestor gear or SRVL.
I did go a bit USN with the massive space aft for ranging up F35s ready for launch over the ramp, though.
The RNs 1st carrier Argus, a scale wooden model was tested in wind tunnel to finalise the bridge location/layout – originally it was one each side of the flight deck!
Same for Furious for full deck carrier, Vindictive and of course Eagle.
They were very aware of airflow and the structures plus the rear deck where the planes came to land.
The design choices, never easy for smaller scale in a wind tunnel , were fully informed by aerodynamics
Read what I said about how low speed aerodynamics has evolved in recent decades and how the testing was done.
Hint the testing wasn’t done in a way that would be considered relevant today with low speed laminar air flows.
The files are in The National Archives in the AVIA series….but please don’t let facts get in the way…..
Supportive Bloke
The other relevant fact that sailorbouy has completely overlooked is the invention of the jet engine
Accordingly, there is a very big difference between the speeds that WW2 naval aircraft took of and landed – and todays USN F18’s
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Early jet engined aircraft had relatively poor take off performance, ME 262 was a prime example, With the proliferation of Jets came the problem of how to launch them from Carriers. Early experimentation and operational experience launching Sea Hurricanes and the likes off Gun Turrets morphed into the C&T’s on carriers. Recovery methods also evolved from basic ditch at sea to floats being added and we arrived at the Super Carrier we see today.
With the new unmanned tech we are seeing being developed and tested in various conflicted regions, It’s not inconceivable that relatively small drones will be able to launch and recover from a QE with no uber expensive Emals conversion.
It worked for decades, It’ll still work now for the lighter weight and slower Drones.
A Sea Tempest might require a Habakkuk sized deck if no Emals were to be fitted.
Have I mentioned Pykrete before ?
It’s Ideal weather you know, we could easily assemble them out doors in Scotland at this time of the year.
In addition can you imagine a frozen solid “HMS Loch Ness” patrolling the North Sea with Typhoons, F35’s and Tempests…. What a “monster” she would be.
Yes, indeed.
And the *increased* sensitivity [therefore reduced reaction times] of the platforms during take off and landing to external variants!
Everyone on here is underestimating how difficult and dangerous jet carrier deck ops are. It isn’t a place to improvise with £100m planes annd munitions around.
Jim
Both Pykrete and catapult launchers are very old fashioned concepts:..
I suggest we go for something far more modern and sophisicated for the RN’s next, 6th Generation, airpower:
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note1.
If I had even the slightest Idea what you said there, I’d happily give some sort of reply.
Having sort of digested it now, I can see that you are suggesting that Pykrete is an old fashioned version of Fudge ? But at a different heat level ?
To be able to produce and store enough Fudge is part of the MOD’s remit and The Chief Fudge Packer is to be installed at Portsmouth ?
Reminds me of that old ditty, “I’m not a Pheasant plucker (Insert Fudge) I’m a Pheasant pluckers mate (not sure if any mates are actually still around) I only pluck the Pheasants when the Pheasant plucker’s late.
I guess that Whale island is full of Pluckers.
Jim
Do I have to remind you that you were very reguarly baiting me about my opinion on Pykrete – for about a week – before I retailiated……..so
I eventually decided to give you something to chew over!
I honestly believe that a new RN carrier could be rushed into service quickly using this wonder material: simply by using up the existing MOD stocks of Fudge
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
No comment about the ancestry of the Inhabitants of Whale Island
……mainly because I may well have to pay them a visit quite soon
,,,,because the task of a travelling fudge salesman is never done!
“low speed laminar air flows:
This is incoherent in the sense of carrier
Still used scale models
The word ‘laminar’ doesnt appear in the entire study . Not once
Its fine if you want to invent stuff, but dont claim some authority for your ‘jargon’
Scale Modelling is still essential as computational methods need to be validated
I never said they used a ‘high speed’ wind tunnel for Argus. Even today they are variable speed to match the airflow speed required.
Ask the Wright brothers as an experimental wind tunnel was one of their key methods used to achieve their first powered controlled flight
1:200 scale model of the QEC used, made by “3D printing” of course
If you knew anything about low speed wind tunnels you would know why the word laminar was in my text as there is something specific done to achieve laminar airflow!
Simply turning down the fan speed doesn’t make a high speed tunnel into a low speed one.
What you have said was that QEC was tow tank tested which is something totally different. And we were not talking about that.
Supportive Bloke
Duker is definitely getting mixed up…….;
…..probably because back in the 1950’s the USN used to wind tunnels to test its new teardrop shaped submarines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Albacore_(AGSS-569)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Well apparently he reckons that if you “Sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind” Quote un quote.
Bloke has an awful lot of wind if you ask me.
Just had to open the window. Pffffff
Sayings like “has someone Guffed and who’s let off” spring to mind.
I feel that a new MOD department should be set up to provide Further Analysis Required To Ensure Realistic Status.
F.A.R.T.E.R.S. Is my suggestion but it’s all up in the air at the moment.
Anyone got an air freshener I can borrow ?
Confused is not the word…..it is like arguing with some malformed AI bot!
Having been here a few years now, He seems to have preceded any malformed AI Bot by quite a considerable time.
AI has a really long way to go before any sense or actual knowledge can get close to a basic human level of understanding it seems.
No, Im right . Do your research for actual facts
I have the book which shows the wooden scale models for the Argus, Furious (as a proper carrier) and Eagle and says they were tested in a wind tunnel for the deck wind effects
DK Brown The Grand Fleet
The hull model testing has been around for ever and the WW2 Type XXI for germany was wind model tested for the hull water flows ( not deck)
‘Naval engineers spent the next 18 months generating detailed blueprints for what would become the Type XXI Elektroboot—or “electric boat.” To eke out every gram of performance, they even subjected scale models to wind tunnel tests. “
https://www.historynet.com/type-xxi-u-boat/
Mr Peter
Do you know what happened to my order of Chicken Chow Mein at the McDonald’s, it seems to have been deleted by ….skulduggery?
Pete
No!
….because my rather rude post on the very same topic was also deleted by the very same devious and underhand act of skullduggery
Shall I ask Duker?
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
No. The study I mentioned QEC wasnt ‘tow tested in water’ – for hull design. (That would have been separate and they just use a lower hull model)
1.4 m long (1:200) scale model of the QEC was submerged in a water channel and Acoustic Doppler Velocimetry was used to measure the unsteady flow around the ship.
This was to get empirical data for the deck airflows
Ok – so you don’t understand what you have posted – I get it.
“ 1.4 m long (1:200) scale model of the QEC was submerged in a water channel and Acoustic Doppler Velocimetry was used to measure the unsteady flow around the ship.”
‘Submerged in water’ – means under water
‘Used to measure unsteady *flow*’ – means water is moving – which is what flowing means.
Doppler Velocimetry – means using the Doppler effect – at acoustic frequencies – to determine the flow disturbances in the above ‘unsteady flow’.
It was done in a towed testing tank at, I think, Southampton University: to be perfectly honest I can’t quite remember. N-a-B will probably correct me on that.
“It was done in a towed testing tank at, I think, Southampton University:
False: it was University of Liverpool
False: It wasnt a towed testing water tank., the model was stationary and the water flowed …
You have no idea at all, and think guesswork and big noting your little knowledge might impress others
The image is from the paper
. University of Liverpool recirculating water channel
I’ve done my best to rejig the design so that I don’t need to move the ramp.
The problem now is that I extended the sponson along the entire port side.
Not sure what it takes to put a 65000 tonne carrier off balance, but the angled deck is now very nearly parallel to the takeoff run:
Sailorbouy
Your school homework has been just been marked “F”
Please resubmit.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Oh, that’s mean.
Anyway, here’s a third design with a completely parallel CATOBAR runway:
This might be a nutty suggestion, but could we have one with two ski ramps and an emals of sorts integrated into one of the ski ramp so both ramps then could be also for F35Bs simultaneously?
Definitely a nutty suggestion. 😂
Some of the early QE concepts had two runways leading into a single, full width ski ramp (like the Russian carrier).
That was canned, I don’t know why but it went at about the same time as they cut down to the single runway.
There’s one of the fantasy Russian carrier projects that has two ski ramps, one one on the angled deck as well.
The problem is that a curved EMALS on the ramp hasn’t been tried before so it would prevent much drone stuff being done.
Also, when are we going to get enough F35 to need to double the launch rate?
This is an idea the Russian designers took seriously for STOBAR. The idea was to have a half-length catapult before the ramp (rather than integrated into it). The minimum take off speed off a ramp can be little more than half that of taking off the flat for a jet with high power-to-weight. Speed off the catapult is roughly proportional to the square root of the length (ignoring wind resistance) so a much smaller and cheaper catapult can be used to get a jet up to say 70 or 80 knots.
I believe they used the short catapult concept for launching auxillaries too. The design of the last Soviet carrier, the Ulyanovsk (never completed), was a hybrid that had fighters such as the SU-33 launcing off the bow ramp and large AEW aircraft launching from a full length side catapult. A series of designs in the 2010s riffed off this, incuding a couple that had both bow and side ramps paired with the short pre-ramp catapults. One proposed design, I can’t recall if it was for the Lamantin class or the Shtorm, had two short catapults in front of both ramps, but I believe the side ramp (where AEW would be launched) may have been less steep than the bow ramp. As Sailorboy points out, these designs in the 2010s were fantasy, but from recognised ship designers who will have cruched the numbers.
A lightweight launch of F-35B for CAP doesn’t need either ramp or catapult (eg America class), so having a bow ramp for heavy launch and catapults on the side without a ramp which the jets would ignore, exactly like the Ulyanovsk, could work for the same types of aircraft. The older designs don’t take lightweight UAVs into consideration.
The equations are not as favourable for a turboprop or low thrust jet, which can’t make much use of the ramp, but provided there is sufficient strength in the undercarriage to endure a full speed arrested landing, there’s probably enough to survive a ramp take off too. I have no idea whether a short pre-ramp catapult would be sufficient for an E-2D. I have my doubts. Nevertheless combining catapults and ramps is certainly a real possibility.
I’d give it a C for effort.
C for secondary source information – as you have a thirst for knowledge The National Archives and The Bristol Archives would be worth some time. A couple of weeks spent there and you’d really know a lot. Once you realise the joy of primary source history and the ability to disambiguate from the drivel most people pump out…..main problem is to think of a coherent research thread that doesn’t take you down the rabbit hole of random files. Have a look at what The Thin Pinstripe Line is doing now – maybe work with him as a research assistant?
B- for developing a polite argument and taking on board valid points. The ‘-‘ is for not reading a couple of points closely enough and integrating them into the thread.
A – for bothering to take any of this seriously!
At least he drew some schematics to add to the discussion and politely argued the point. A few on here could learn from that.
I think the main thing that SailorBoy needs to learn is not to believe everything he reads in various tomes as most of the writers were pedalling a few, sometimes a hanger full of, hobby horses! Wiki is 50% rubbish on marginal topics.
Don’t have much of a choice when it comes to secondary sources, I’m afraid.
Both you and Peter (I think) have had long careers in the defence industry and so have had a look at all sorts of projects and ideas.
I just have the internet and whatever books I can get my hands on.
I agree that Brown is a ‘bit’ opinionated. He gets the same with CVA01 later in his career, after spending time working on projects he convinced himself that each one was the silver bullet that would revolutionise carrier aviation.
“At least he drew some schematics to add to the discussion and politely argued the point. A few on here could learn from that”
Supportive Bloke
So yes, Ok…… fair cop…….just maybe I was was tiny little bit mean to Sailorbouy yesterday by marking his year 11 school homework as “F”.
As you quite-righty say, others could learn from his enthusium, and politeness.,,, and I really should not be jumping on, and crushing, youthful enthusium = because that is very politically incorrect.in these times….
So lets compromise on the marking:
PS Sailorbouy
The one pharse: “That a really good idea boss” will get you places!
———————
However, out here in the big school of life……Sailiorbouy needs to learn that, in the big grown up world of defence procurement of “big stuff”, plenty of very good technical ideas get “binned” by the technically illiterate officer class working in the upper echelons of the MOD and/or RN
= usually without any further thought and
……..often because there was red colouring in used on the plans …..
………..but, most-usually, binned on the grounds of NIHS (note 1)
—————
Then Sailorbouy also has to learn that the RN / RAF / Army Officer classes only get around to copying the best of USA’s school kids homework several years after the USA’s brighest schoolkids have already left high school.
………so usually soon after one of the UK’s three different tribes of officers have just witnessed the very best of the USA’s weapons systems being used in action.
As examples
————————-
And, that is a key pychological problem for the officer class = because UK officers keep wanting the same pieces of kit as the US use
.whether – of often not – finding out whether the US kit is any good
So, as of today, lots and lots of commmentors here on Navy Lookout drooll over USN’s 1970’s era techology: F18’s; Hawkeyes, Growler etc
———————-
All joking apart, I consider that all attempt to modifiy the QE class carriers for UAV and OFT (note1) are, quite frankty, not a very good idea. Frankly, its bonkers!
My expert opinion is held because
and Supportive Bloke is right: we need more F-35’s in the UK fleet and also more effective weapons kit for the F35 – so more big missiles and big bombs loaded into the QE magazines (please)
——————–
In my humble opinion, IF the RN is really serious about operating UAV’s at sea….
…and I have to add that the RN is really struggling to do anything right whatoseve with the development of these UAV’s at the present time….
The RN should bin this completely hare-barined idea of modifying the QE class to operate small and medium sized UAV’s
Overall, I believe RN / MOD would be far better off
The QE’s fixed wing jets righly belong far out in the deep blue ocean: i.e. the operating area where the carrier should remain!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
NOTE 1.
I do hope Sailorbouy really is a boy (i.e male gender) otherwise I might have used the wrong pronoun = and then I will be in very deep poo with the editor of NL!!
TLA translator
(OFM‘s are the next big thing to trend = you heard it here first on NL!)
HMS Eagle had a nice purple patch, but spent most of its life in refits and upgrades to accommodate the next set of planes. That’s one reason I agree with the meat of your post. Continuously ripping apart and upgrading the QE class will chop the active life of the carriers to a fraction of what we could get by simply accepting F-35B as the primary planes and adding V/STOL adjuncts.
If we really must play about with catapult-launched UAVs (and it’s possible we might) that’s a huge step and we need to leave the QE class out of it for as long as possible.
“ Even worse, the RN showed no interst in precision guided cruise missiles”
Not quite true. RN would have loved some but T42 had the hopeless Sea Dart loader system, T22 had nowhere to put Mk41 and T23 was built with the change from the mess bills.
“ Despite a few being used right at the very end of the Falklands War, the RAF showed no interest whatsover. in developing smart bombs.”
Indeed LGBs were used right at the end of corporate. Not very well.
One of the laser designators was lost in an SF cab crash and went into the drink.
The other wasn’t really used as well as it should have been.
LGBs are the main reason I say Black Buck was a waste of time.
You could have precision bombed Stanley Airfield with a few Harriers and LGBs as Sharkey Ward said which would have been even more effective as you could have made up any old story about the bomb trucks as they would have been at high level. As well as actually having damaged planes and munitions rather than ‘one hole in the runway…..’ and you could have kept doing that for as long as you liked as often as you liked!
“ MLRS was the direct predecessor of HIMARS”
Same fundamental system
“ Then the RAF showed no interest in stealth – sorry, I must call it low observability in the third decade of the 21st Century – until a very stealthy USAF F117 Nighthawk put a pair of those aforementioned USAF smart bombs down Saddam H’s chimney pot”
The V bombers had a stealthy profile but didn’t use RAM. But they were tested ‘on the pole’.
There was a lot of stealth tech developed in the UK but you can’t really use it on old platforms like Harrier and Jag etc.
There is more low observability worked into Typhoon than many give credit for.
Typhoon is still a major class act. Especially T4. We should really order those 24 new ones ASAP Even the Raptor Pilot on a rare exchange confirmed just how “Awesome” they were after his stint as an instructor.
Yee Harrrr, Great balls of fire and all that.
Supportive Bloke
I can only partially agree
PGM’s
Tomahawk
Sharky Ward
Stealth Technology
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
The T. Cruise in this post is “Tomahawk Cruise”: so not to be confused ot the actor in Top Gun: the pratt who kept spoiling my view of the true star of that classic film = Kelly McGillis!,
TFLRCBATRI.
Think about it in simple terms.
A great article but a sad indictment of where the RN finds itself in the 2020’s. Agree with everything that Nige said earlier. Hopefully the FAA will have its own F35B squadrons going into the 2030’s. We need lots of kit but don’t forget It’s “ Jolly Jack that makes the difference” when Hands To Action Stations comes over the tannoy. Let’s hope the SDR gets us to 3% with pressure from the Dnald on HMG.
SDR teams were told to go away when they said 3% was needed
“when they said 3% was needed”
Thats nonsense. The budget inherited from Tories was a fraction over 2% ( aid to Ukraine was added above that)
No SDR would say 3% is needed when its at 2%.
It was literally mentioned in a recent article by NL.
“There are strong rumours that the team conducting the SDR, led by Lord Robertson, have submitted their recommendations but were told by Ministers to go away and re-write it because it suggested expenditure above 3% of GDP was needed for a credible defence policy.“
https://www.navylookout.com/a-year-in-review-the-royal-navy-in-2024/
Wait, what…. “With over 40 UAS and 300 uncrewed systems currently in operation” – in operation with whom?
Does our entire fleet of USV and ROV for MCM and survey add up to 300?
How does the RN have over 40 uncrewed arial systems?
Mostly at the small end
This is launched by bungee, The Desert Hawk from Royal Artillery
I love his name.
Off the top of my head. There’ll be quite a few small UAVs for the Marines, like Black Hornets, Parrot Anafis, Anduril Ghosts, Ebees then there’s hand thrown Pumas, and Banshees, a couple of Peregrines, Malloy T150s, T400s, and those “on trial” like Sky Mantis and I’m not sure if they bought the Windracers. if we are talking about systems and not types of systems, 40 seems really low. I’d have thought there would be more Banshees alone than that.
“Future considerations for the carrier air wing are largely shaped by the limitations of the F-35 and the inevitable transition to uncrewed platforms.”
The type of aircraft carriers the Royal Navy operates will shape the Fleet Air Arm too. Imagine if the RN had built two CATOBAR carriers, something akin to the Midway-class. That would have allowed the RN to operate the F-35C, which has better range than the F-35B. Plus, that opens up possibility of operating Hawkeyes and Growlers. In the end, this would have provided full interoperability with US and French carriers.
USN operates the F-35C as a nuclear strike bomber. The F-18 currently doesnt have that capability- because of the internals not the bomb capacity which isnt significant
The nuclear mission aside, the F-35C can carry heavier payloads a lot farther than the F-35B. And, with a CATOBAR carrier the RN would have had full interoperability with the French and US navies. Cross-decking aircraft with your allies is not an insignificant capability.
The RN wanted the F-35C for an Invincibles replacement carrier. It was the RAF which chose the F-35B as at the time the Harriers were all combined as a Joint force
“The JFH was formed on April 1, 2000, as part of the Strategic Defence Review. It combined the RAF’s four Harrier GR7/7A squadrons with the Royal Navy’s two Sea Harrier FA2 squadrons under RAF Strike command”
RN didn’t want F35C for QEC’s.
That option was discarded well before order on costs grounds and the inability of anyone to deliver a reliable fully tested that would work on an electric propulsion system.
The other massive cost of Charlie variant is pilot qualification. Go ask the French and Americans the repeated costs of tail hook qualifying!
On Bravo variant you can convert a pilot very quickly.
I checked what Admiral West said at a Commons committee , he was 1st Sea Lord ( for 2 weeks) when announcement was made for F35B purchase. It was news to him and he was Fleet Commander before that.
he said the Navy FAA wanted the F35C but the RAF- by the late 90s were in control of JFH, both sea and land harriers- made the decisions
The carrier hadnt been designed yet and Catobar was still on the cards. A british designed emals was possible and the future issues with the US system were unknown at the time
I know theres good advantages to the F-35B
It’ll be interesting to see any evolution of the F35B. Maybe a slight stretch for a longer bomb bay, greater payload, more fuel, bigger engine, improved stealth at higher mach. To match other nations twin engines naval fighters I’d like to see a twin engine mockup, maybe with a different main engine, but this is probably a nuts idea. Like to see the gun pod reconsidered or even a podded DEW.
I’d rather just have Blk4 delivered with the UK weapons integrated and a lot more frames.
Once you stretch a frame and put a more powerful engine into it – it starts to sound a lot like a new model…with all the attendant risks that goes with.
There is already a spiral project for the engines that is part funded stateside.
There is already plenty of bomb truck capacity. What is needed more urgently are a wider range of weapons, more pilots & maintainers, spares and frames. Then an AAR solution if you want range OR big pile of long range stealthy standoff weapons [they exist or are in development] – which is more realistically achievable without looking into a bottomless pit of cash – which MoD obviously doesn’t have.
You could try buddy tanking like the Super Hornet can do but that ties up combat aircraft. A CV-22 tanker variant might work too.
We have discussed the carrier AAR tanking options to death on here and UKDJ!
The conclusion was that most forms of refuelling are not worth the candle as the amount of fuel lifted is so small.
Which is why I’d put the emphasis on long range stand off weapons as combined with more F35B frames there is a small chance we can actually implement this incrementally.
With all the multifarious issues RN has one of the priorities isn’t to find another big budget problem to solve.
More F35B, F35B weapons, Mk41 missiles, Merlin parts, A30 development, 1850 upgrades and most importantly *people* these are the real priorities built around making the most of what we already have or have on order.
Is there any more news if RFA Argus will have finished her maintenance period and work up in time to sail with the CSG? What actually will her role be (solid supply ship) or is she just using the opportunity of an escort through the Sues Canal and back to her station of LSG south?
Like to see them add a couple of 30mm or another Phalanx on the Argus for a bit more all round coverage if she’s going to transit the Suez Gulf area even as part of the CSG.
Yeah but that would be a good idea, the MOD proffer fitted for but not with
Ref AAD
Quentin D63 and Mark P
A long debate about improving the AAD of the two carriers was held on Navy Lookout several months ago. (so when POW replaced QE at short notice: and sailed off without Phalanx……) ;
The conclusion of that debate was that fitting plenty of the brand new 40mm mounts would be ideal for Anti-Aircraft anti-drone and Anti–missle defence of the two RN carriers
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Having two serviceable props would have been handy too.
Good morning, yes, I read that and look at l this site regularly. Agree, even a couple of 40mm, maybe one forward on the starboard sponson and be on the stern port sponson, along with the 3 Phalanx’s as they are. I’m not sure if they’re planning for the Ancilia decoy launchers for the carriers and even Dragonfire down the track but Ancilia should be doable, alongside being fitted to T45/T26/T31s and even offer some anti torpedo defences.
Sorry to lower the tone but some people here argued that 30mm guns, on the QEC would be shooting up the T45 and T23 escorts instead, maybe due to the crap shooting skill?
It was not surprising that Phalanx was omitted from POW since there would be plenty of time to sail back to Portsmouth in case of conflicts. After all, we don’t want any salt corrosion on them, don’t we? Strange that other navies don’t have the same problem with Phalanx, wrong type of salt water maybe?
POW is going nowhere near Killer Tomatoes anytime soon.
We don’t have enough Phalanx for the entire fleet+maintenence
This excuse I have heard many time before.
What ships are actually mounting it day to day beside T45 and QEC that required so much maintenance? And how many T45 and QEC are actually actively on duty?
According to this 2020 article below, there should be enough to go around. And since 2020 there are even less ships in the fleet that could use Phalanx
https://www.navylookout.com/last-ditch-defence-the-phalanx-close-in-weapon-system-in-focus/
6 current on QEs, 6 on T45s, rest is RFA that varies.
Current max requirement would be 35/41
But with the introduction of T26, FSSS and MRSS assuming none are cut, well then have a requirement of 60/41, see the issue there? No new phalanx sets have been ordered for T26
The history part of this post is suspect. The Navy’s flight component had been formed as the RNAS and saw action during WW1. In 1918 it was amalgamated with the RFC to form the RAF. The Fleet Air Arm of the RAF was formed on April Fools day 1924, only being handed back to the Navy in 1939.
Thanks for that . I thought the ‘centenary’ is a bit late too, the RN was doing air strikes from the sea during 1915 against the Ottoman coastline in Red Sea and Levant
And wheeled aircraft part and the first flat deck carrier HMS Argus
Photo Credit RAN website as they had one one on HMAS Australia
You have to wonder about the veracity of people arguments about the future when they can’t get basic historical facts correct.
Good article as usual and great comments.
As others have implied, if the SDR just comes up with another round of cuts it will be suicidal for UK as well as provoking the ire of the Trumpulator. He will take steps to force the basket case semi-communist economies of UK and EU to cough up their fair share. I agree they have been doing their share in sending aid to Ukraine but nothing else, unfortunately UK tax take is up to WWII levels, totally impoverishing the economy and preventing growth, but all spent on such things as “social programmes” and “cimate change”, even while UK is freezing to death and desperately needs warmth but busy shutting down all reliable power stations and stopping North Sea drilling.
UK will have to sort that out itself, we might like to look at what is happening to German industry due to the multiplication of electricity prices due to adoption of medieval windmill technology. Meanwhile we need a real navy, army and air force much larger than the present token remnants.
The present article strongly implies the Fleet Air Arm needs its own planes. Other comments have suggested the cost of cats and traps should be swallowed to allow future planes (even the UK Tempest project does not envisage a STOL version) and more importantly the Grumman Hawkeye and inter-operability wit our NATO allies.I agree with allthat.
WIll be interesting to see what happens next, I guess the new Labour govt can choose whether UK goes under as a pathetic basket case or rises to the occasion.
Cheers
John
Wind turbines and solar power are the cheapest forms of electrical generation, for the simple reason you don’t have to buy fuel for them.
Electricity is expensive in the U.K. because all forms of generation is priced based on the cost of generating electricity by burning gas. If the government could change this they could cut the cost, and slash inflation, overnight.
German industry is suffering rocketing electricity prices because
• after Fukashima they shut down their nuclear plants
• then then relied upon buying Russian natural gas.
• they don’t have much wind generation.
We just had 14 years of Tory government and they have governed for the majority of the period since WW2 – yet you accuse the U.K. of being “semi-communist”.
Are you a troll or utterly detached from reality?
This is the typical delusional rant we have come to expect from the intellectually challenged woke tree hugging VEGANS ( they always shout that word ).
Solar.
Most solar tech and hardware is bought from China being produced using mostly coal fired energy from their 3000 or so Coal powered power stations and shipped all around the World on huge Diesel guzzling ships then distributed by huge diesel powered lorries.
Wind.
These turbine blades are also produced using huge quantities of power and non recyclable materials. Each turbine requires huge amounts of Petroleum based products to be able to turn and each blade is transported all around the World by Diesel guzzling Ships and require huge amounts of diesel powered vehicles to be installed and then decommissioned where the blades are then buried in huge holes dug by diesel powered machines.
Costs of Electricity.
It’s expensive because the producers need to make staggering amounts of profit and the Governments need to raise huge amounts of revenue.
Personally I think you are the Troll here.
Jon is just contributing his thoughts and being respectful.
Sean
FTLDNR
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
SLA – Far Too Long Did Not Read
I apologize for the “semi-communist” remark, I really meant governments appropriating very large proportions of the economy, which always leads to more ineffciency.
Regarding wind and solar power, Germany and UK have relatively high percentages of installed wind capacity, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country but their capacity factors are only 31 and 23 percent respectively, ie on average they generate less than a third of their advertised rating, and the times at which their power is generated cannot be controlled. They are often not available at peak demand times eg evenings. Therefore it is necessary to keep virtually full power backup with batteries (prohibitively expensive and has never been done on a large scale) or existing power plants on standby, for times the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining. This is why “cheap” wind and solar installations multiply rather than reduce overall electricity costs, and why countries with relatively more of them (eg UK and Germany) have the highest electricity costs.
Apologies for any offense,
John
What you could have added is that by using intermittency as a major power source you have to use open cycle GT’s [quick to spin up/down] rather than closed cycle GTs.
This takes GT efficiency from 90+% down to 60% so is a terribly expensive way to generate electricity, a dreadful way to use gas and probably increases the carbon footprint by any rational accounting method.
Time to give the FAA back its proper name.
The effect would be profound.
I agree, from all I have read, it is a great concept about the RAF and RN cooperating, but their needs are basically different, let’s restore the Fleet Air Arm. The next UK warplane project (Typhoon) does not comtemplate any STOVL capability, neither does any US plan that I have heard of so far, so where are we going to get our RN/FAA carrier planes in the future?
Might be better to instal the old-fashined but UK-invented steam catapault or if necessary Emals, as we really need to look to the future and also be able to operate a naval version of AWACS or the Grumman Hawkeye or something. I am sure the RN must be looking into this, fine to think that AEW can just be remote controlled, but can it really?? At the moment we are using helicopter technology for that, generated after the Falklands war as a stopgap measure. Even in that war lack of AEW was the main problem for the Naval Task Force. If we had to do it again right now we would be in much better shape with decent carriers and STOVL aircraft and with the helicopter patch but much less escorts and submarines and would still be severely lacking in real AEW.
Cheers
John
John
= There is no steam generated on board the QE carriers (except the tea kettle)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Mr Peter, I beg to differ.
Crowsnest is a AEW but it lacks the range, speed, attitude and endurance of a fixed wing AEW so the capability is less.
Lack of attitude limit the coverage hence the warning time and lack of range limit the distance from the carrier hence making the “hiding area” of the carrier less.
Some will say there is millions of square miles of ocean to hide but not when any radars are swathed on.
Have you ever watched this?
Red Storm Rising
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo8FhChnyq0
By the way, may I order an Egg Foo Young? Or have to ask….. Sydney?
Lyco
Have am aware of Red Storm Rising:
Remind Me...
was the key plot that those nasty and sneaky Red Russain Commies took the USN carrier battle groups by surprise – ]
Using the sneaky tactic of locating the circling USN Hawkeyes AEW radar planes
…..and, from that data,
……….working out where the carrier’s most probable location was
……. so as to launch lots and lots of ASM missiles at the carrier
Therefore – “range, speed, attitude and endurance” are not everything in life
Predictability is more far deadly!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS You’ll have order your egg wotsit from Duker. We only take cash!
Huh? It’s still called the Fleet Air Arm, isn’t it? It just doesn’t own the helicopters or the planes.
No. The FAA owns the helicopters. The F35B is RAF but joint operation.
The naval helicopters of JFH – an operational command-are only the Commando force Merlin and Wildcat choppers and they are still separately ‘owned’
Thanks for the info
It is becoming increasingly obvious that a significant rise in the defence budget is unlikely. Commitments to AUKUS and GCAP will squeeze the funding left for other projects. So UK needs to make best use of existing assets without incurring large additional costs.
Buying more F35s before block4 allows integration of UK weapons is pointless. Deferring the next tranche would fund the much needed purchase of additional Typhoons.
For the next few years, we should repurpose one carrier for amphibious operations as planned in 2017.
Fitting EMALS is likely to be unaffordable and actually undermines the whole reason for choosing F35B. So any replacement for Crowsnest should be able to operate without it- whether manned or unmanned.
Deferring the next tranche means the F35 force cannot consistently deploy
Until block 4 allows integration of something better than Paveway4, what’s the point of buying more? End 2029 now seems to be the likely date for block 4 completion.
It will have taken UK> 7 years to get its first 48.
48 will be delivered by 2025, we need to order more otherwise we’ll be waiting well into the 2030s