Summary and Key Points: HMS Prince of Wales, Britain’s second Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, represents both strategic promise and ongoing frustration. Critical to the UK’s naval power projection, the ship can carry dozens of F-35Bs, enhancing Britain’s military influence globally.
-Yet recurring mechanical problems, such as significant shaft misalignments and severe leaks, have consistently delayed operational readiness and inflated costs, sparking debate about possibly selling the vessel.
-Despite these setbacks, HMS Prince of Wales recently regained momentum, planning an Indo-Pacific deployment, signaling confidence in its future. Named after a celebrated WWII battleship, its legacy underscores resilience, suggesting the carrier might overcome current challenges and prevail.
Troubled Waters: Can Britain’s HMS Prince of Wales Finally Overcome Its Failures
Britain’s second Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales, could be described as somewhat of a paradox or contradiction, as the ship is about as troubled as it is successful and important to the Royal Navy.
As the second flagship carrier in a prestigious and nationally-defining ship effort, the HMS Prince of Wales has been at the center of controversy for quite some time. The ship is considered critical to the Royal Navy and part of the United Kingdom’s national identity.
However, mechanical and technical problems have derailed its progress for many years and caused financial strain on the United Kingdom. Some from within the UK advocate ultimately selling the carrier to recover some of the lost money, yet supporters of the ship point to its defining capabilities and relevance to British national security.
Much like the lead vessel, HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales operates without catapults and instead relies upon Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) aircraft such as the F-35B.
The ship can support as many as 48-to-70 F-35Bs, helicopters, and airborne early-warning aircraft. Given the UK’s F-35 buy, the presence of a second Queen Elizabeth class carrier brings massive ability to project power beyond England’s shores.
It enables the UK to operate forward in the Baltic Sea or even the Mediterranean and vast Atlantic.
The carrier’s promise, however, is offset by continued lingering problems related to cost and performance.
The 19FortyFive reported previously on the ship, outlining the major issues associated with its performance. Mechanical failure related to the port shaft and starboard shaft misalignment delayed the ship’s operational schedule.
Efforts to repair and revive the carrier have raised some hopes yet highlighted fundamental problems and vulnerabilities woven into the ship’s design and construction.
As far back as 2020, the ship’s operational readiness was compromised due to two serious leaks which required repairs.
This history means that, despite its promise and value to the UK, the ship has perpetually suffered with an inability to reach its intended potential.
However, just as a Phoenix rises from the ashes of its own destruction, the HMS Prince of Wales may live to protect the UK after all.
Its most recent indications are that the ship will survive and surge into the future with the Royal Navy.
The ship is now preparing for a deployment to the Indo-Pacific and was recently visited by King Charles.
WWII-era Prince of Wales
The embattled HMS Prince of Wales carrier is named after one of the most famous battleships to ever fight as part of the British Navy, the World War II-era King George V-class battleship called the HMS Prince of Wales.
Destroying German battleships, surviving Italian aircraft attacks, and intercepting Japanese troop convoys are a few of the famous missions performed by the renowned British HMS Prince of Wales battleship.
It may not seem possible, but the ship was able to accomplish all of these things within less than one year. The HMS Prince of Wales was a King George V-class battleship in the Royal Navy that performed with great success and intensity in WWII before being sunk by Japanese aircraft in 1941, just two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The ship’s notable achievements include successful strikes on the German battleship Bismark during the Battle of the Denmark Strait and withstanding an air attack from Italian aircraft.
The ship was eventually sunk by the Japanese when attempting to intercept Japanese troop convoys off the coast of Malaya.
About the Author: Kris Osborn
Kris Osborn is the Military Technology Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Donald Smith
March 13, 2025 at 9:54 am
Was it poor design that has effected these two Carriers or Bad Workmanship ???? We have never seen any reports as to why these faults continue to dog these ships ????
Martin Loughbrough
March 13, 2025 at 11:39 am
Teething problems with a new class of ship. Similarly with the USN Ford class. I imagine the Chinese may experience teething problems with their new ships but may not share the info as openly
Rob White
March 13, 2025 at 2:31 pm
To operate independently she needs in company 1) a Type 45 destroyer 2) an Astute SSN 3) a tanker 4) a solid stores shop (Spoiler alert: we don’t have one.) The same applies to QE. Oh, and she still doesn’t have a proper complement of F35’s. Triff!
Mj20359
March 13, 2025 at 3:14 pm
Nothing this complex can exist without teething problems. I also expect they are overly cautious when it comes to fixing issues during peacetime, so when the vessel is needed it’s in good condition. In war time they would likely have to ignore minor problems.
vjie king
March 13, 2025 at 7:21 pm
If up for sale, India wants to buy. How much?
MR ANDREW J SMITH
March 14, 2025 at 3:39 am
Old news.
Bob Bobbins
March 14, 2025 at 3:50 am
Kris Osborn needs to stop spouting BS – keep your mouth shout and worry about US “issues” like your clown President and the state of your navy!! Theres nothing more wrong with our ships than you’d expect with a new design.
Sean
March 14, 2025 at 4:47 am
“To operate independently” does not apply to any aircraft carrier. They all operate within a battle group.
I really don’t understand your point here. The lack of supply vessels may be a problem. That’s why NATO is a handy alliance.
Destroyers and Frigates are designed to protect a formation of vessels from both air and sea.
Roderick Crawford
March 14, 2025 at 11:29 am
I would like to know more about the extent to which the port shaft and starboard shaft misalignment have been corrected. Has that been fully corrected? I always find it incredible that the contracts didn’t require fundamental problems of design and construction to addressed by the defence contractor rather than managed out of future MoD budgets. A recipe for managing problems rather than addressing them.
Stephen Hayes
March 14, 2025 at 1:56 pm
Can the author elaborate on the type of early warning aircraft the carrier operates?😏
Steve
March 19, 2025 at 2:40 pm
Must be terribly being drafted to one of these carriers, you could go through your entire service and not get out of Portsmouth.
Denys Partington
March 19, 2025 at 9:50 pm
So! Is it England or UK! Boils my blood when you lot say England and UK in reports like this! It is a UK ship mostly built and repaired in Scotland manned by legends from all over the UK. No wonder we want independence!
Roger Barnes
March 19, 2025 at 10:23 pm
I think you’re saying that the WW2 HMS Prince of Wales was ultimately a failure too. Both the QE carriers are utterly silly ships because of the lack of cats and traps: clearly they should be flying Rafales, not STOL F35s, sufficient of which the U.K. can’t afford and which can be degraded or even effectively switched off by a hostile USA president – why is what we have.