There are now at least three navies that have acquired or are developing ‘flat-top’ carriers designed specifically to carry uncrewed air systems. Here we look at some of these projects and the implications of this trend.
Navies, such as the RN that already possess aircraft carriers are also planning to add UAS capabilities to their ships but this is not the main focus of this article. While ownership of carriers for fixed-wing crewed aircraft is beyond the reach of many nations, drone/UAS carriers offer a cheaper low-risk pathway to achieving a measure of naval air power. They also have attractions for established carrier navies as a platform for technology experimentation, a way to add greater mass to existing air wings and as vessels that could be risked in places that multi-$billion conventional carriers would avoid.
The UXV Combatant was a multi-role drone mothership, the design envisioned a sleek, low-observable vessel capable of launching and recovering a wide array of UAVs, USVs, and UUVs while maintaining traditional naval combat capabilities.
The design proposed twin angled flight decks in a V-shape that emerged on either side of the superstructure. This arrangement would have been extremely awkward from an aviation perspective but allowed an array of weapons to be mounted forward, blending the drone carrier with a more conventional warship. This was really just a conversation-starter and well ahead of its time but foreshadowed trends that are gaining traction now.
China
In November 2024 a large vessel put to sea from the shipyard at Guangzhou in China, estimated to be about 200m long and with a beam of 40 metres. This ship is not operated by the navy (PLAN) but carries the markings of the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC). This vessel has been constructed quickly, probably to civilian standards and without any attempt to reduce the radar cross-section. It does, however appear to be fitted with naval radars and other sensors.
The forward island contains the bridge, a second island amidships has the flying control position and a small funnel astern gives it a unique ‘3-island profile’. What is believed to be the ship’s name ‘Zhong Chuan Zi Hao’ is painted in large letters on the side and the flight deck has markings for VTOL UAS operations. There are multiple drone launch and recovery stations and hangar bays integrated into the superstructure.
The authoritarian Chinese government has the advantage of being able to initiate large naval projects in great secrecy without any accountability to its public so the exact purpose of the ship is unclear for now. Whether the Zhong Chuan Zi Hao is intended for frontline deployment or as a technology demonstrator and trials ship, the level of investment suggests this is part of a longer-term project.
Given Chinese production capacity, this may be a prototype for many more similar vessels. If fully integrated into the PLAN, drone carriers would provide another persistent platform for ISR and strike operations, especially in contested areas of the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait.
Iran
In contrast to China’s high-end approach, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) has embraced a low-cost, high-volume drone strategy. In July 2022, Iran revealed it was developing a ‘drone carrier division’ consisting of retrofitted merchant vessels and corvettes equipped with long-range UASs.
The first new drone carrier, the IRIS Shahid Bahman Bagheri commissioned in February 2024, a container ship originally built in South Korea but converted in Iran. The 160-metre flight deck is partially cantilevered over its port side so the superstructure did not have to be re-sited. This will make for awkward landing approaches and unfavourable turbulence that may restrict the UAS operating envelope.
The Bagheri reportedly carries both fixed-wing and rotary-wing UAS, including variants of the Mohajer, Shahed, and Ababil families. The quality and capabilities of these drones may be variable but they pose a challenge that high-end navies are struggling to meet cost-effectively. Iran portrays the drone ships as extending its ISR and strike capabilities across the Gulf and potentially into the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. The Bagheri has a considerable 22,000 nm range and can operate for a year without refuelling. With a spacious interior, it has a hospital and even a large sports hall with an astroturf pitch for crew recreation.
-
Unveiled to the media with a mix of helicopters and drones on deck. UAS and supplies can be loaded into the hangar through the large door in the starboard side. Additional weapons can be carried on the aft deck behind the superstructure. -
Certainly a new take on the ‘angled flight deck’ originally pioneered by the Royal Navy. Note the single aircraft lift and missile canisters behind the bridge. This ship is around 42,000 tons and 240m in length, approximately the same size as the French carrier FS Charles de Gaulle. -
The Shahid Bahman Bagheri also incorporates another RN innovation, the ski ramp. Note the 30mm gun mount and short range missile launchers on the bow. -
The Qaher-313 jet UAS seen on deck. Whether these are credible weapon systems or more like toy models for propaganda purposes is open to question. However, the ship can certainly launch a large swarm of one-way attack drones.
Given Iran’s focus on asymmetric warfare, these carriers are likely not intended for conventional peer combat, at least initially. Instead, they extend Tehran’s capacity for maritime presence, psychological operations, and proxy support in contested littorals. The drone carrier is a political symbol as much as a military tool, although the threat they pose may change as UAS improve and they build more of these type of vessels.
The Bagheri is something of a compromise but this rough and ready approach has allowed Iran to get the capability to sea quickly and cheaply. While the RN and other ’tier one’ navies have some great PowerPoints and drone carrier aspirations there has been a failure to move at pace, still bound by self-imposed bureaucracy, a risk-averse culture and glacial procurement processes.
Turkey
The Türk Donanması is repurposing a previously planned fixed-wing carrier project into a drone-focused concept. The TCG Anadolu is an LHD, based on the Spanish Juan Carlos design but built in Turkey. The ship was originally intended to operate up to 10 F-35B jets but Turkey was expelled from the F-35 programme in 2019 after purchasing Russian S-400 air defence systems. The Anadolu has subsequently been adapted to operate UAS instead.
The key platform in this revised concept is the Bayraktar TB3 — a navalised version of the successful TB2 Medium Altitude, Long Endurance (MALE) UAS. The TB3 features folding wings, strengthened landing gear and a short take-off and landing capability compatible with the Anadolu’s flight deck. In November 2024, a TB3 successfully conducted its first take-off and landing from the Anadolu. This marked the first time a fixed-wing unmanned aircraft of this class had operated from an LHD without the aid of arresting gear.
Bayraktar is also developing a jet-powered UAV, the Kızılelma, which may one day be launched from the Anadolu. The project demonstrates the maturity of Turkey’s defence industry and its ability to pivot quickly from traditional acquisition paths toward domestic innovation. Turkey is also planning to adapt the Angelou to carry a large air group of UAVS and in the longer term, aims to build its first indigenously designed carrier – the Milli Uçak Gemisi ( MUGEM) capable of hosting a mix of up to 50 crewed and uncrewed aircraft.
Portugal
Following a programme launched in 2022, the Marinha Portuguesa has signed a contract with Damen in the Netherlands for the delivery of a Multifunctional Naval Platform to be named NRP D. João II. Based on the 7,000-tonne Damen MSS concept, the focus of this ship is not primarily naval combat and the uncrewed systems are will be deployed on ISR, humanitarian aid/disaster relief, oceanographic and environmental monitoring missions.
The D. João Il will have a 94-metre flight deck with a UAS hangar in the forward part of the ship. The after section comprises a multi-mission hangar capable of embarking containers, vehicles, boats or USVs that can be launched and recovered from a stern ramp. There is also a small side hangar for ROV and UUVs. In parallel the ship will support modest crewed rotary wing operations with a hangar for a single medium helicopter. There is also a role 3 hospital facility and emergency accommodation for up to 200 people.
As a regional navy that has never operated an aircraft carrier or amphibious vessel, this marks a big step for Portugal in acquiring greater naval aviation capability than can be delivered by its three frigates. This unusual vessel promises to be a very flexible asset and its capabilities can be enhanced as uncrewed technologies advance.
Brazil
Demonstrating the versatility of an LHD and ships with large decks, the Brazilian Navy will conduct trials of the Albatroz UAS on the helicopter carrier NAM Atlântico (ex HMS Ocean) later this year. The Brazilian Navy has already operated the Insitu ScanEagle RQ-1 system launched from a portable catapult from the deck of the Atlântico. In July 2024, the UAS was deployed from the ship to survey the Rio Grande do Sul region following serious flooding. Although rather unwieldily, the ScanEagle was one the first operational UAS to be used by navies and was trialled by the RN between 2013-15.
Doctrinal dilemmas
Despite the advancing technology, effectively integrating uncrewed aircraft onto naval platforms is not straightforward. Launch and recovery at sea remain non-trivial tasks, particularly in heavy seas or high winds. Command and control of multiple uncrewed systems is complex and reliant on secure data links that can be subject to jamming or disruption. Doctrine is still being developed for how drone carriers may function, potentially as independent surveillance nodes, hunter-killers, or extensions of larger battle groups.
The divergent paths of different nations reflect differing strategic outlooks and resources but all point to a future in which drone carriers, in some form, become fixtures of naval fleets. The concept of a carrier has always been defined by its aircraft. With the emergence of increasingly capable and AI-enabled UAS, that definition is being rewritten. No longer the exclusive domain of great powers, sea-based air power is now within reach of regional and even minor navies.
For established carrier navies, the challenge is integrating UAS into their existing platforms without hampering the operation of expensive, crewed aircraft which will remain largely superior and the primary effector in most roles, for the next decade at least. There may also be a strong case for following the Chinese example and building separate low-cost dedicated vessels rather than attempting to reconfigure conventional carriers for hybrid operation.
The rise of drone carriers reflects not just the increasing influence of uncrewed systems on warfare but a strategic shift toward more distributed, survivable, and flexible forms of maritime power projection. For now, drone carriers are mostly modest in size and ambition but in time, they may prove transformational. While armchair experts continually prophesy “the end of the aircraft carrier”, the opposite may be true with UAS enabling a new generation of carriers that may become more numerous and dominant in naval warfare than ever.
I’ve recently started thinking about the possibility of unmanned seaplanes being deployed in mass from any ship with a suitable crane and a cargo bay
Would the range of flying boats that could fit in, say, a T26 really give you that much of an advantage over VTOL drones launched from the flight deck?
Drones have an advantage because their fuselages don’t have to be shaped for people to fit in. Turning it back into a flying boat would seem to undermine that useful feature.
Flying Boats and Sea Planes had different strengths. Japan still use the US-2 today.
Sea Planes do offer a host of advantages in many ways, I’d not be too quick ruling them out personally. The fundamental Idea was rather sound back in the day. Catalinas and Sunderlands (to name but two) had a huge impact on Sea Warfare at the time, no reason to doubt they could again given modern tech and thinking.
No — civil engineering came to the rescue.
Flying boats were big when we didn’t have the runways.
It’s great to hear that Civil Engineering has since built so many Runways all over the Worlds Oceans….. What is it now, 50 or 60 between Ascension and FI’s ?…. 100 in the gap between Cyprus and Australia ?
It’s amazing what we can do nowadays.
If I were a Tax Payer, I’d be rather Irate though.
Planes have gotten bigger / better / more efficient.
Air to air refuelling will help.
Keeling Island is still there.
Meanwhile, simply to avoid annoying the NL editor; returning to and staying on topic of UAV’s:……..
Note 1.
I am assuming here that the Indian Ocean still retains its old colonial name of the Indian Ocean – and that it has not been, obviously only very recently, rebranded by either the President of Banglasdesh, or indeed by the President of Mexico.
Note 2
Not to ever be confused with a Norton Bombsite.
Note 3
WH Smith is however soon to be rebranded = obviously to maintain its deep cover as one of the best secret intelligence agencies to be found anywhere in the world today….
Re Note 1:
Trump is trolling every time he mentions the Gulf of America. All of Biden’s legislation preventing drilling in the Gulf talk about the Gulf of Mexico. Renaming makes all the legislation void.
A few problems, flying boats still need ‘runways’ close to needed facilities and any flexibility over land based equivalents would require a large long ranged aircraft. As tankers are now seen as a liability due to long range anti aircraft missiles why would such an aircraft be advantageous? Ok so that leaves the small types based from ships. Would they offer serious advantage? As others have suggested you lose aerodynamic efficiency and they have added weight giving their range over larger drones questionable at best, plus they would be anything but stealthy. Then you have the problem of any ship carrying them having to stop to crane them back onboard no easy task in anything but good weather conditions while leaving its mothership off station if part of a task force and potentially vulnerable.
I would say that as drones advance any window of advantage such an aircraft had on paper would all but disappear by the time it entered service. In reality its downsides and limited use cases would never make it a worthwhile investment as hybrid novel drone types that can combine helicopter and aircraft qualities especially if refuelling became an option are a far better bet overall. Nonetheless I admire your left field thinking,always worth rethinking older concepts as has happened with airships.
Yep, PreWW2 there were few airfields anyway. PostWW2 they were everywhere !
All those airfields in that big blue bit..it’s amazing what you can create with a load of lilos glued together….
Doesnt show existing small islands and the Mercator map projection distorts the size of continental land masses in that area
The map you have shown is the distorted one as the Atlantic goes towards the equator it gets wider and wider… try turning your map into a globe…. As for reasonable mid Atlantic airfields there is 1 in the north and in the south.
I know its the distorted Mercator projection. The point was to show Atlantic island like Azores , Bermuda , Cape Verde etc
Winkel Tripel projection
I have been pushing figures around on this for the last half decade a least. You can have quite a sizeable fixed wing aircraft in the same foot print as a Merlin. Plus consider autogyro tech etc.
Consider this is shorter and lighter with three times ceiling than Merlin. Imagine something built for a more ‘sedate’ role like ASaC or AEW………..
I do not see much purpose for these craft. Small to middle sized drones can be launched from a frigate, even an OPV or an aircraft. Large drones often have a very long range so can be launched from land. On might, I suppose, sail a large ship to a few hundred miles from a potential enemy and launch a surprise attack of hundreds of smallish suicide drones but, for this a modified container ship would probably, would be a lot cheaper and “stealthier”. Indeed, one of my fears is that Putin could do this to the UK.
Or Shi. Huge Chinese container ships pass less than 2km from our carriers in Portsmouth on a daily basis.
Could be, at some future time, but not, I think, for now since China sells us lots of stuff and we have no current dispute with them. However, on the other hand, Iran, the Houthi Rebels or even ISIS …….
HMS James Lithgow — come on down.
At some point the grandstanding of the QE class will have to be admitted.
There are cheaper ways of delivering the capability.
If you can do commercial shipping.
That may have been the issue in the first place.
Plan B is the Shipping classifieds looking for a 10 year old box ship.
That vessel architecture is the future.
A4 Skyhawks must be much in demand.
Basic architecture of a high performance drone in one.
Drone carriers vs helicopter carriers vs Light Fleet Carriers?
We led the way with HMS Ocean — not sure where we are now.
The base point about all of this is experience — move fast and try stuff.
MOD glacial development profile will not work.
Iran — currently wearing the yellow jersey as in the power of desperation.
Next step — better donor vessel and they move the tower block bridge.
Drones — they seem to be making progress.
Bashing metal — quite a lot of work to do.
Cheaper ways of delivering what? An effective Stealth fighter air wing, because these buckets above certainly aren’t it.
Led the way? Ocean was a dirt cheap helicopter carrier that was surpassed by many foreign designs. Certainly wasn’t designed for fixed wing drones
Stealth fighter aircraft wing — the carrier involved is a real estate game.
Expensive aircraft does not mean an expensive carrier platform.
It does not mean a 67 person catering crew.
Ideas above — just the start.
Carrier for a 30 / 36 aircraft wing — one billion in the water should be the target.
Very generous budget but then much more capable than Florence and Fred.
Is their a berthing restriction in place — 285m?
HMS Ocean — dirt cheap is what we need.
Dirt cheap is what Global Navy Inc needs — not show ponies.
Public sector procurement — too many egos involved.
The million dollar bus — it has been tried / seen as a challenge.
The million dollar Alsatian — where we are now.
I wonder what law of physics would stop Ocean from supporting drones?
Do you think her new owner will have the same issues we would have had?
Either that or we are doing constabulary / patrol tasks with tankers.
Brazil is using Ocean for flying drones already.
Well I suppose it’s better than Razor Blades.
well know one has build a 1 billion pound carrier for an airwing of 36.. 1.5 billion will get you 30,000 tons and 12 F35s and about 4-6 Merlin’s..
The only reason Ocean was a success was because thank god it was never seriously shoot at. Had it been, and had it received damaged it civilian construction would have made it the Hood of today.
You do realise that the Hood / Mk2 was full on military spec.
As in full on military spec ronson managed in a very poor fashion.
Sir ETdE’s attempt to get down with the hip kids.
Much like Fleetwood Mac I much prefer their earlier work.
Repair and Refit were poor but the Hood was catastrophic.
Civilian construction is not as bad as the service thinks.
In fact it is probably more robust in that it has scale and fresh air.
Damage control is where the work needs to be done.
You must be really, really, really old.
I remember when Fleetwood Mac were just Rumours.
Old enough to get Tusk first time round.
Then Rumours as an add on.
Student level nosiness got me into the 60’s stuff very late.
Three full albums of stuff — pretty cheap too.
Different level good — seemingly Peter Green made up the name to give the stiffs a sense of ownership.
I think that’s obvious given the randomness that he plonks words and thoughts on the page without any coherence…
You have no comprehension skills do you?
He is talking about loss of life and it’s impact on society not its classification.
You do realise………..FFS.
And some people can’t see the irony of the comment?
First you say we need more like Ocean, then you admit it was a Ronson… 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
No the Hood was a Ronson.
Full on military spec by our own new fangled DNC.
Including solutions to all the issues he raised in previous builds.
He made an erse of Repair and Refit.
Then he compounded it with the Hood.
Two goes at the issue and just discovered new ways to fail.
HMS Ocean — very useful ship.
Should have been the first step down a long road towards sanity.
Unfortunately with the budget assured it was a handbrake turn.
Back to the MOD / RN gold plating with Florence and Fred.
Not good — as in the 67 needed for the catering crew?
A lot of my mates served on Ocean and none of them were happy about the civvy spec’d watertight compartmentalisation on her. The (almost tongue in cheek joke in the fleet) was that she’d flood to the bridge.
Ocean — Mk1.
Next gen would try and up the game.
Watertight compartments — how many are we / were we talking about?
Every space / individual compartment does not need to be watertight.
Just make sure that the main bulkheads are solid.
And that we have quite a few in the right place.
Gilding the lily springs to mind.
Which is funny until you are doing DC for real and really wanting to isolate that flood/fire….and because the flood/fire is a lot larger and has a larger fuel load or needs more water and has a larger area with water sloshing around it is then a metacentric stability issue as you desperately try and deal with it…..and the problem is four times larger than it could have been if the compartments were…..
So handy on a flat top with loads of AVGAS and things which go bang?
Moskva showed what happens when you don’t take DC seriously – a very large ship which should have been survivable…wasn’t….and that sadly cost a lot of lives.
Recent North Sea prang.
What type of missile would have put that size of a hole in the tanker?
Scud B on a good day?
Lasting memory of the incident was the radar still working two days later.
Plus Falklands feedback — the NATO kill switch on the Exocet probably doomed the Sheffield.
If the warhead had gone off the blast would have diminished the amount of fuel left to burn and increased the initial / surface damage.
Better placement of the fire fighting main would also be a plus.
Plus a captain who was not scared of the sun / fresh air.
You are right DC is a tough gig.
The naval bonus is that they train for it.
Commercial shipping is lean crewed and they have insurance.
Anything big and it is head for the lifeboat.
“ Plus Falklands feedback — the NATO kill switch on the Exocet probably doomed the Sheffield.”
I don’t think this is true as RN understood very well how Exocet worked. Remember one was dropped so we had a good look inside the bits that were supposed to be return to factory service.
“ If the warhead had gone off the blast would have diminished the amount of fuel left to burn and increased the initial / surface damage.”
The more recent thinking was that the Exocet warhead did explode. If it didn’t initially it would be a total miracle if it didn’t explode with the raging fire surrounding it.
“ Better placement of the fire fighting main would also be a plus.”
Thus is true as was the lack of duplication of some systems.
“ Plus a captain who was not scared of the sun / fresh air.”
A navy board appointed a submariner. He didn’t appoint himself. Don’t blame a man handed an impossible task, which he wasn’t fully trained for, for the decisions of others.
“ The naval bonus is that they train for it.”
Didn’t work so well for Moskva because her DC design and training were not adequate.
“Commercial shipping is lean crewed and they have insurance.”
Even if you have all the trained hands in the world you cannot solve fundamental survivability flaws on the fly. A raging fire on an open deck structure is fundamentally uncontrollable with 5-10 people so you have to abandon ship at that point.
The smaller the DC zone [compartment] the less resource is needed to control it and the less danger it presents to the overall ship.
Sheffield vs Exocet — shouldn’t have been a fair fight.
Other ships have fared better under different circumstances.
But the Type 42 design was a Treasury special and fared accordingly.
Warhead — fair bit of revisionism surrounding the whole exercise.
I don’t think there was a secondary explosion with the crew onboard but I might need to read more.
DC / Fire fighting — do we fit water cannon to our ships?
If not it might be one for the future.
Might even help the decoy tactics.
Plus it would help with any fires.
Sub bloke — might have been a career development move to get him to an exec level later on. As in command experience in something not a sub — it happens everywhere just a case that you are not up against bad guys with missiles.
No matter it was poorly handled with poor leadership throughout the ship.
Moskva — Vodka republic vibe throughout the whole sorry saga.
Survivability / RN style — Warspite / Exeter vs Ark Royal / Manchester?
Performance levels make all the difference plus leadership / desire / energy. DC is not for those scared fartless by old wives tales.
Raging fire / open deck — see PSV / tugboats for water cannon.
Might be a tough gig but it will help.
DC zones — how many do you need?
T23 scale — 8 to 10 transverse bulkheads / 3 longitudinal bulkheads / 3 main deck levels?
COTS level framing has a quality all of its own.
Dumb steel and air / angle iron engineering — resilient / durable.
Just a guess but making every compartment no matter how small certifiably watertight with appropriate testing is an expensive mug’s game that we seem to play every day of the week.
Recent North Sea prang — what missile would have caused that level of damage to the tanker?
Or will the Red Sea yahoos be digging out the plans of a trireme and give ramming a go?
Torpedoes — that could be their joker.
Along with the T54 main gun and Katjusha spec 2 bob rockets.
To be honest kinda noisy ship…especially when alongside next to all the cruise ships in Miami lol
I’ve long been in favour of the RN having extra escort carriers rather than adapting the QE class. However, if the RN had more money right now, there would be other places to spend it first. Like more sailors. Getting a through-deck design for MRSS would be nice, but the RN want a more conventional fighting ship, so I don’t see it happening.
Off topic:
Does anyone know when the first Type 31 and Type 26 will be delivered?
What armament will each Type 31 be delivered with? I understand that some are scheduled to receive Mk41 VLS later on, but will the later ships be delivered with it from the start? Will the first few ships be fitted with the 12 cell mushroom farm or the 24 cell?
No no unknown.
Well according to some random MSN article, T31 is undergoing trials off the coast Of Pasty Land, although it’s actually HMS Dauntless which is a T45 Destroyer…. The quality of news reporting died a slow death when MSN arrived.
I saw it AR as well, though they quickly took it down.
It’s still up on my feed. Some of the comments are hilarious, just like this place at Happy Hour !
Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps Barman
HMS Venturer will be floated out the first half of FY26 with HMS Active in the second half. Given all 5 ships are meant to be delivered by 2030, we’d like see the first T31 commissioned in 2nd half of 2027 after first of class trials, the second not long after. I think it is 2028 for HMS Glasgow.
With regards to weapons fit, it’s all fairly clear bar the missiles – 2 x 40mm, 1 x 57mm. NSM will follow at some point. I’ve heard both 12 and 24 CAMM, but think these are new VLS cells rather than mushroom farm ones from the T23s.
HMS Venturer is expected to be rolled out of its building hall and then floated away earlier than that …this year
The exact date is not yet decided but expected to be in the Spring, probably in May
https://www.navylookout.com/first-type-31-frigate-hms-venturer-due-to-be-launched-in-this-spring/
The most recent I’ve heard is the first two have no missiles at all then the remaining 3 will receive the 32 Mk 41 and 12 for CAMM
No missiles at all? Might be opportune to adapt the Gravehawk for CAMM and trial some containerised pods on deck?
They can’t don’t CAMM and Mk41. No missiles at all would make them uselese
The first two will have them fitted after built, the rest have the silos included as part of the initial build.
Whilst it is a reasonable guess even that hasn’t been announced.
The first 2 will have CAMM fitted in mushroom midships with the guns etc. The following 3 will have the Mk41’s fitted which will be fitted to the first 2 once they come due for some major works. They need to have a fit for ASW also and here is plenty room for a simple but effective sonar fit. Not the best ASW but something better than nothing.
‘Mushrooms’ were only used to the T23 sea wolf upgrades. Camm uses normal vertical launch modules – with opening hatches
24 is day dreaming really.
Iranian bodge — rough as a badger’s erse but a few good elements in amongst the angle iron engineering suggesting that if the budget went up they would spend it well.
Next gen — Brave pill will mean the bridge tower gets removed.
Plus they will go for a bigger boat — Panamax should not be an issue.
One to watch — the size of their maritime workforce.
I’m sure the ones that trained in Glesga must be coming up for retirement.
That is pre Mr Happy Glesga training in the Gorbals — not for the faint hearted.
I wonder if they ever net the USN at the dancing in the Locarno?
The first actual drone carrier was HMS Argus, convered to operate Queen Bee drones in 1938-9. She reverted to a conventional carrier for the war.
I don’t see most of these being much of a step forward from Reliant or Argus. A lot of these concept ships are just re-hashes of 1970s ‘Harrier Carrier’ designs.
And with a Carrier Harrier at least the Harrier can provide a CAP to defend the carrier. At the moment drones are only good for surveillance and kamikaze land-attacks.
A SHAR could provide CAP a GR couldn’t.
Chinese — Box boat in disguise / rear funnel points to direct drive.
Portuguese — Too small / Davit frame at the back looks interesting.
Brazilian — Well kent face turning over a new trick.
RN demarcation angle / worse than 70’s BL — Drones would be QE only.
If Ocean was still here she would not be allowed anything fixed wing.
Are we still working to the rule that land attack is subs only.
I don’t think it’s a rule – just lack of money!
Just a gentle reminder, T32 was described as a platform for Autonomous Vehicles.
T32 is as yet an unknown quantity or even if it was actually just a BJ mis speak.
But this concept has been explored before (as the article says) and you can bet that the new era of drone threats has not gone un noticed.
A platform for Autonomous Weapons/Systems/MCM and Intel gathering, might not be such a bad Idea.
It seems obvious to me that Type 32=MRSS now.
T32 was intended to grow the Escort Fleet not replace other assets. But I see how obvious it seems.
Just a gentle reminder that toilet flushing is not allowed during the daytime.
Just wondering what payload you could get inside a UAV, if it could land at the other end. Failing that underslung supplies which might make up for lack of FSS?. What about landing say a Land Rover ashore underslung for Royals?. .
I’m not sure which Royals you are suggesting but I hope we can develop a delivery system for Andrew and maybe that Camilla bloke.
I bet I get banned for that. !
Ah, the flat-top fantasy—drones buzzing about, all sleek lines and unblinking eyes. Back when I was on HMS Iron Duke—“Dukey” to those who knew her intimately—uncrewed air systems were the stuff of saucy daydreams. We got by with radar sweeps, sharp eyes, and a bit of sailor’s intuition—old-school methods, but they always knew how to satisfy.
There’s plenty to get hot under the collar about—cheaper, riskier, and up for a bit of rough where a pricier companion might shy away. But all that talk of “greater mass” and “high-risk environments” doesn’t mention the tricky bits. Integration’s a real tangle, and the best kit can go limp when things get wet and wild.
It’s exciting, no doubt, but until they can handle a proper pounding—heavy seas, gusting winds, and a long, rough ride—I’ll keep a soft spot for the old ways. Nothing wrong with a classic who knows how to deliver when it counts.
Its a typo in the name of the interesting Portuguese ‘carrier’
NRP D. João Il meaning King John 2nd. There seems to be a small l rather than capital I
I’ll say this, If Turkey is able to pull it off and build a creditable UAV/UCAV/Helicopter drone carrier. It will be a HUGE game changer and I’m willing to bet in the next 10 to 20 years, your going to see alot of Countries race to have their own UAV/UCAV/Helicopter drone carrier. You’ll see countries that you never thought about getting an LHD/LHA before start making serious intentions on getting an LHA or LHD
Their drone carrier, Anadolu, is built and working up. Their drone programmes are looking very good, with the TB3 and Kizilelma drones already under trials. It will take Baykar a while to integrate them as a carrier fighting force. Also this Kizilelma is only the first of three models, the second of which will be supersonic, the last will be twin engined and able to carry a much higher payload. They’ve also signed a joint development programme with Leonardo in Italy for the next generation of drones.
Here’s what AI and ChatGpt thinks who will be the next country in the next 10 to 20 years to get in on the UAV/UCAV drone carrier game.
Predicting which countries might convert their Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs) or Landing Helicopter Assault (LHAs) ships into hybrid carriers capable of supporting unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) alongside helicopters over the next 10 to 20 years involves considering several factors: current naval capabilities, strategic priorities, technological advancements, and geopolitical pressures. Based on trends in military modernization, the growing role of unmanned systems in warfare, and the adaptability of amphibious assault ships, here are some countries that could plausibly pursue this path by 2035–2045, beyond those already experimenting with such concepts (like Turkey and China).
1. Japan
Japan operates LHD-like vessels, such as the Izumo-class helicopter destroyers (officially classified as DDH), which are already being modified to support fixed-wing aircraft like the F-35B. With a flight deck of around 248 meters and a displacement of 27,000 tons, these ships have significant potential for further adaptation. Japan’s increasing focus on countering regional threats, particularly from China, and its investment in advanced technologies make it a strong candidate to integrate UAVs and UCAVs. The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force could leverage these platforms for long-range ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) and strike missions using drones, enhancing their operational flexibility in the Indo-Pacific without requiring full-sized carriers.
2. South Korea
South Korea’s Dokdo-class amphibious assault ships (LHDs) and its planned LPX-II light aircraft carrier project indicate a growing interest in versatile naval aviation platforms. The Dokdo class, with a 199-meter flight deck, has already been tested with UAVs, such as the Gray Eagle STOL in November 2024. As South Korea faces ongoing tensions with North Korea and a rising China, integrating UAV/UCAV capabilities into its LHDs could provide cost-effective power projection and persistent surveillance. The LPX-II, expected to operate F-35Bs, might also evolve into a hybrid carrier with drones, aligning with South Korea’s push for advanced defense technologies.
3. India
India’s naval ambitions include expanding its carrier fleet, but its current and future LHDs, like the planned Multi-Role Support Vessel (MRSV), could serve as testbeds for UAV/UCAV operations. With a growing domestic drone industry (e.g., HAL’s combat drones) and a need to patrol vast maritime zones in the Indian Ocean, India might adapt its amphibious ships to deploy unmanned systems for ISR, anti-submarine warfare, and strike roles. This would complement its manned carriers like INS Vikrant and provide a scalable, cost-efficient option amid budget constraints and regional rivalry with China.
4. France
France operates the Mistral-class LHDs, which have a 199-meter flight deck and a proven ability to support helicopters and amphibious operations. As a NATO member with global interests, France is investing in next-generation unmanned systems, including naval drones tied to its Future Combat Air System (FCAS). Converting *Mistral*-class ships to accommodate UAVs/UCAVs could enhance France’s power projection in regions like the Mediterranean or Indo-Pacific, especially for ISR and precision strikes, while preserving its nuclear carrier (*Charles de Gaulle*) for manned aviation.
5. United Kingdom
The UK’s Queen Elizabeth -class carriers already support F-35Bs, but its aging *Ocean*-class LHD (decommissioned) or future amphibious platforms could be reimagined as hybrid UAV/UCAV carriers. The UK has explored UCAV technology with projects like Taranis and is part of AUKUS, which emphasizes unmanned systems. Adapting an LHD to launch drones could provide a lower-cost supplement to its carrier fleet, supporting distributed maritime operations and NATO commitments in contested areas like the Arctic or North Atlantic.
Emerging Possibilities
– Australia: With its Canberra-class LHDs (based on Spain’s *Juan Carlos I*), Australia could integrate UAVs/UCAVs to bolster its Indo-Pacific presence, especially under AUKUS collaboration. These 231-meter ships already have ski-jumps, making drone operations feasible.
– Italy: The Trieste LHD, entering service in 2025, has a 230-meter flight deck and F-35B capability. Italy’s interest in drones (e.g., via Leonardo) could lead to a hybrid role, enhancing Mediterranean and expeditionary operations.
– Spain: As the designer of the Juan Carlos I LHD (231 meters, F-35B-capable), Spain might adapt its own ship or export designs to include UAV/UCAV roles, capitalizing on its shipbuilding expertise and NATO alignment.
Why These Conversions?
The shift toward UAV/UCAV-capable LHDs/LHAs reflects several drivers: the affordability of drones compared to manned aircraft, their ability to conduct high-risk missions without pilot loss, and the flexibility of amphibious ships with large flight decks (typically 200+ meters). Countries with constrained budgets or smaller navies see this as a way to punch above their weight, while larger powers view it as a force multiplier. Technological advancements, like foldable-wing drones (e.g., Turkey’s Bayraktar TB3) and electromagnetic catapults (e.g., China’s Type 076), further enable these conversions.
Who’s Already Doing It?
– Turkey: The TCG Anadolu LHD has been converted to operate Bayraktar TB3 and Kizilelma UCAVs, pioneering this concept after losing F-35B access.
– China: The Type 076 LHA, under construction, will feature catapults for UAVs/UCAVs, blending amphibious and carrier roles.
– United States: While not converting LHAs/LHDs explicitly, the U.S. experiments with drone operations from Wasp- and America -class ships, though its focus remains on supercarriers.
Over the next 10–20 years, nations with strategic maritime interests, existing LHD/LHA platforms, and investments in unmanned tech are most likely to follow suit. Japan, South Korea, and India stand out in Asia due to regional dynamics, while France and the UK could lead in Europe, driven by NATO and global roles. Emerging players like Australia and Italy might join later, depending on threat perceptions and industrial capacity.
Does that mean that the RN has backed the wrong horse?
Drones don’t need the sophistication of Florence and Fred?
Is there a drone classification system in use?
Quite a wide spread of technology under the one banner.
From para gliders to fast jets in half scale — all seemingly are drones.
Can get a bit confusing.
Britain’s “aging *Ocean*-class LHD (decommissioned)” already operates UAVs or at least was reported operating one last year. Of course it’s now part of the Brazilian Navy, renamed the NAM Atlantico, and should properly be listed under their country, not ours.
“with a bean of 40 metres”?
What’s even more baffling is the failure to mention Type 076 in an article about drone carriers with a section dedicated to Chinese navy…
NL never runs articles on the PLAN Navy, I wish they would though just so that we can all see the true extent of their incredible build programme.
This.
Navy Lookout …Independent Royal Navy news and analysis
The title sounds like a s**t Star Wars film😉😂
If you want to build UCAVs with similar range and payload to current manned combat aircraft, they aren’t go to weigh much less. Launching and recovering them safely is going to mean much larger carriers and powerful launch and recovery systems. So costs will be similar to those of current super carriers,
What might change the game is a heavy STOVL or VTOL UCAV, that could, like the F35B be operated from much smaller ships.
Something like BAE Strix?
Plus they cost twice what an FA-18 D costs
There is a potential Achilles Heel with operating drones from ships at sea. Which is how they are communicated with when out of line of sight. Traditionally a satellite data-link is used, but you can also use mobile phone networks to control and pass back the data. This communication link is very open to attack.
However, as the war in Ukraine has shown, drones are susceptible to electronic countermeasures. Be that a direct attack on the radio frequencies used by the drones or jamming the GPS. But it has also shown that both sides are continuously developing techniques to counter the jamming. Where one side has a few months of advantage followed by the other side developing the counter etc.
Perhaps surprisingly with Russia’s past exploits at demonstrating their anti-satellite capabilities. They have yet to attacks the satellites used for Ukraine’s drones. I guess some of the problem stems from both sides using the Starlink network of satellites.
In the future I do see a more kinetic approach with dealing with “enemy” satellites, especially those in low earth orbit. With the soon to be fitted (by 20027) Dragonfire on the T45s. There is perhaps a method to not outright destroy a satellite, but to enable a mission kill. A lot will depend on how much the atmosphere attenuates the laser spot’s intensity. But if there’s enough power, it may be enough to temporarily blind the light gathering sensors used for surveillance. If it has enough power it could outright damage the sensor. But it could also be used to damage the solar cells used to power the satellite. Which may be enough to stop it being used as a data-link relay. Crucially it should be able to damage the satellite enough without completely destroying it and creating more debris in orbit. The Starlink satellites, although not cubesats, do use a single extended arm that holds the solar cells to power the satellite. For something like Dragonfire, could it be used to damage the cells?
Whilst Satellites are being used for legacy UAVs, the current generation of UAV are using AI and Machine Learning (ML) to self navigate. The efficacy of “self navigation” will only increase, we are past 1st generation and onto 3rd generation AI systems at the moment.
Note 1
Note 2
Note 3.
Note 4
The beauty of Dragonfire is that it is a scalable fibre laser. So in essence you could include additional fibres to generate a more intensive beam. Hand in hand with that is the need to scale up the optics. As I understand it, this was the biggest problem that needed solving and holding the program back. The assumption is that following the successful trials two years ago, this issue has been solved.
To get past the issues with the optics, you can make the laser mega powerful but give it a wider beam diameter. So when it hits a target over distance there still a large proportion of the spots intensity on the target. Which is more or less what they did with the Airborne laser on the B747 and the “Star Wars” ground based laser. We have now advanced 40 years since these systems were fielded. We the creation and control of optics has significantly advanced. You will still definitely get blooming and beam divergence. But today it is better controlled and mitigated for.
I guess it was only a matter of time before someone figured out. Wait a minute we use fibre optics on ATGMs, so why can’t we do the same for a drone?
That is a very good point in regards to an AI/ML controlled drone. Depending on the type of navigation used, there may be a weakness if the drone relies on GPS to navigate. Where GPS jamming will still have a role to play. However, if the drone uses terrain and object recognition, then that will be nye on impossible to spoof, much like the current Storm Shadow.
I’m guessing that if the drone is a suicide drone, or one that deploys weapons. Then currently they still need to show the operator what they are targeting and get permission to enable the attack? Which will still require a form of data-link/mobile phone network. So that part of the puzzle will still be vulnerable to electronic attack. The next question is where a drone has been programmed to search for specific targets that are held in a library, where after it has recognized the target attacks it, without an operator controlling it. Apart from the legal questions, I’d fear that this type of drone would be very difficult to disable using electronic warfare. Apart from using directed energy weapons such as a laser or microwave emitter. Perhaps we may see tactically deployed electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) weapons being used.
Hence the use of quantum guidance to obviate GPS.
Have you seen the size of “quantum” kit!
Satellite angle — not a hope with Dragonfire.
The power output is too low for low orbit engagements.
Somebody somewhere is most probably working on it but it is still brainware.
Drones — at sea and elsewhere.
Network solution — multiple building blocks working together to cover a large area.
Pretty clunky control strategies will kick us off / have been in play.
Just a case that we didn’t call them drones.
Soviet volley ASM’s showed how things can work with a bit of imagination.
Machine learning is for the classroom / pattern matching is for operations.
Are you sure you are not actually Pete ? You really do a great Impression and I’m rather good at spotting stuff like this !!!!
“There’s Grey In My Beard” has very similar traits too. You all have faulty keyboards/spellings….
Just saying !!!!
Either way, I don’t dislike your way of interacting here, It’s oh so entertaining in an otherwise, oh so boring bunch of copy and paste/pedantic/keyboard warrior types.
It would be a real hoot seeing just who was actually who on here given the multitude of different accounts that are allowed.
Help me out — who is “Pete”?
Local worthy / quality bloke / snider of the highest order?
Should I be worried / should I be afraid / should I be chuffed?
Nah…. You know exactly who you/he is.
Anyway, keep it going, I love the intricate interactions you keep giving.
So much fun. So good seeing how others react.
A man after my own heart !
MCM
JJ
In reply to your latest conspiracy theory…
A Full Explanation:.
Accordingly:
Furthermore,
If you do ask next…
——————–
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Explanitory Notes
For all of you many thousands of punters whom are reading this post whom are unfamilar withsome, or all, of the three thousand plus Three Letter Acronyms (TLA’s) and jackspeak used within MOD: I shall explain:
NOTE 1
NOTE 2
YET ANOTHER TLA
For variety, one regular ‘poster’ posts with different spelling mistakes, grammar and syntax. They either have a split keyboard personality or two people become one persona….
At college (quite a few years ago!), we used a 5W laser to measure the distance of the Moon using NASA’s reflector. Granted this was a pretty basic by today’s standards ruby laser that used commercial off the shelf optics. However, it did show how the optics significantly affected the beam and the focusing for such a distant target. Roll on a few years, we now have Dragonfire, with its publicly quoted output of 50kW.
I suspect that this is not its true max power output. Being a fibre laser, where much like an AESA array, multiple beams are optically merged to generate a greater intensity beam. I’m pretty certain the Dragonfire Team, will keep the true power output under wraps. Compared to the ground based Star Wars effort. Dragonfire uses significantly better optics for controlling the beam. So in theory the divergence of the beam over distance should be a lot less. I still have my doubts over what effect this will have on an object that is 150 miles in altitude. But feel it is something worth looking at.
DaveyB
Many thank for posting some very useful information (in reply to my posts of yesterday).
Very much apprectaed
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
This may be of interest from OPEX360:
In 2021, as part of the government support plan for the aeronautical sector, the Directorate-General for Armaments [DGA] ordered from Survey Copter, an Airbus subsidiary, 11 aerial mini-drone systems on board for the Navy [SMDM], each including two Aliaca drones and a control station. The objective was to equip surveillance frigates, high-sea patrol boats [PHMs] and semaphores of such capacity.
Being able to be deployed in less than fifteen minutes and launched by means of a catapult, the Aliaca has an autonomy of 3 hours, for a radius of action of 27 nautical. Equipped with electric propulsion, this drone transmits in real time the images and data it collects during its mission. At the end of it, it is automatically recovered, thanks to fillet.
Put to the test very quickly, during an operational evaluation [EVALOPS] conducted by the Centre for Practical Experiments and Reception of Naval Aeronautics [CEPA/10S] from the PHM “Commander Bouan”, the SMDM “Aliaca” gave full satisfaction. It thus allowed the crew of the PHM “First Master L’Her”, to intercept 4.7 tons of cocaine aboard a cargo ship and to track down an oil tanker hijacked by pirates runching in the Gulf of Guinea.
“While the PHM monitors an area by performing VHF interrogations or conducting a visit, the drone can at the same time investigate more distant areas to identify fishing vessels at distances greater than radar ranges and characterise fishing actions by real-time video stream. It thus offers the PHM an informational extension, which allows it to multiply its efficiency to go to the right place and at the right time to customers of interest, “explained the National Navy.
Last year, the DGA announced the order of an additional 15 SMDM, for 30 million euros.
“Thanks to these performances, the potential for use of these tactical drones is wide: identification and taking pictures of unknown ships, discreet repositioning of ships of interest, or search for shipwrecked,” said the DGA, before specifying that it would benefit from “new technologies” to increase its capacity.
One of the limits of the Aliaca is its launch and retrieval methods.
Indeed, last month, in the columns of the specialised site Naval News, Captain Johann Eidesheim, a member of the Plans and Programs team of the General Staff of the National Navy, insisted on this point. “The current launch and recovery process, although standalone, has [use] restrictions and is not easy to use.”
Therefore, he said, the National Navy would like to have a vertical take-off and landing version [VTOL] of the Aliaca. What she is about to get.
Indeed, on the occasion of the SOFINS [Special Operations Forces Innovation Network Seminar] show which, dedicated to special forces, is to be held between the 1st and 3rd avil at the Souge camp [Gironde], Survey Copter unveiled a VTOL version of the Aliaca. “Several demonstration flights have already been successfully carried out in the land and maritime environment between the end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025,” said the industrialist.
With a mass of 27 kg for a wingspan of 3.5 metres and a length of 2.1 metres, the Aliaca VTOL is equipped with four propellers “allowing vertical takeoff and landing while maintaining its propulsion in fixed swing mode during the mission,” says Survey Copter.
It is available in two “sub-versions”. Thus, powered by an electric motor, the Aliaca VTOL Evo has an endurance of 3 hours, a range of 50 km and a payload capacity of 2 kg. Finally, the Aliaca VTOL ER is equipped with a hybrid engine allowing it to stay in flight for 6 hours. Its range is 80 km for a payload capacity of 3 kg.
One of the advantages of the Aliaca is its GX5 high-performance gyrostabilised electro-optic/infrared [EO/IR] camera. Finally, for sea missions, it carries an Automatic Identification System [AIS] “to detect ships within a radius of several hundred kilometres,” said Survey Copter.
“With its success within the National Navy, the Aliaca VTOL will be able to carry out different types of demanding missions, especially in the ground environment, such as support for special operations, tactical situation maintenance through surveillance and reconnaissance, but also the transport of loads, and this by freeing itself from launch-recovery equipment or infrastructure,” concludes the industrialist.
I have wondered if one use for drones at sea is ‘recovering’ other drones or intelligent missiles.
Sounds like a mini version of the BAE Strix. Strix though, adds hours, speed & weapons.
The BVT drone carrier brain fart of 2007 must be the low point of UK ship design — well beyond the 1938 Hunt class and the Lion hybrids of 1944’ish — beyond pathetic that we knocked up that proposal and made it public.
April 1st design vibe throughout — unfortunately it was for real.
I wonder what they are trying to sell now?
The Hunt class ( of 1939) where a great success as light destroyers , modelled on the escort ‘sloop’ Bittern of 1200 tons and able to be built quickly on smaller slips- which there were many.
A design error missed during review meant initial builds overloaded for stability but quickly fixed by extra beam. Designed for 4in dual purpose main guns ( 3x 2) and 40mm secondary. Deployed successfully in North Sea and UK coastal
waters plus the Med.
86 entered service as the larger destroyer attrition rate was very high