The British Royal Navy has spent over $8 billion on its two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. It doesn’t include what it invested in its F-35B Lightning II fleet short-landing and vertical take-off stealth jets. The Queen-Elizabeth class vessels are not nuclear-powered and have endured problems with their propulsion systems. Some critics wonder if the gargantuan price has been worth it.
Point of National Pride in Queen Elizabeth-Class Carriers
The Royal British Navy intended the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to give a shot to the arm of a navy that had fallen by the wayside over the last 20 years. This was an effort to retake the lead from rivals and bring the Royal Navy back to glory. The Ministry of Defence could always point to the Queen Elizabeth-class as an example of the modernization and re-organization of the British military during times of austerity and reductions in force.
Creating a Carrier Strike Group Would Be Difficult
But five years ago, the Royal Navy was in a conundrum. Due to all the money it spent on the carriers, it found the budget did not include paying for the fighter jets, escorts, and support ships that it needed to populate an effective carrier strike group.
One of the missions that British planners originally foresaw for the Queen Elizabeth-class was for amphibious landings. This would serve as a reminder that the UK’s military could still form expeditionary units to deploy in foreign lands. The Royal Navy sought to retire the HMS Ocean – an amphibious assault ship sold to Brazil. This deal, in theory, would free up money for the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
Modern Carriers Require More Investment
That didn’t totally work as the navy had trouble attempting to pay for the F-35B, the Merlin helicopters, and the Crowsnest radar that was designed to protect the carrier strike group. Without these capabilities, what was the point of having two aircraft carriers?
The Crowsnest system was 18 months late. The navy wanted to buy 138 F-35Bs but had to settle for only 48 Lightning IIs, which was later cut to 37. The idea was originally to place 24 F-35Bs on each carrier, but that dwindled to 18.
Support ships were also delayed, which limited the Queen Elizabeth-class’s ability to be re-supplied with food and munitions. This was only the start of issues that hampered the carriers when they were placed on active duty.
Then the Mechanical Issues Cropped Up
“Both carriers have been beset by problems: leaks, fires, propellers that have failed to propel. In May 2023, it was revealed that HMS Prince of Wales had spent a third of its active life in repairs. Last year, HMS Queen Elizabeth spent four months being serviced in Rosyth, Scotland, the same dry dock in which it was built. Each ship is designed to carry up to 36 F-35B Lightning II fighter jets, yet only 37 in total were expected to have arrived by the end of 2024,” according to Prospect Magazine.
One problem with the Queen Elizabeth-class is that they were conceived and carried out under seven prime ministers—comprising Conservative and Labour party leaders. Each had their own ideas about what defense meant to the United Kingdom. Some were hawks, and some were more dovish, but nearly all government leaders had to deal with less money and resources to modernize the Royal Navy.
Numerous Threats to Aircraft Carriers
Over that period, warfare evolved. There are more effective anti-ship missiles now. These carrier-killers have a longer range and better destructive capabilities. They can evade radar systems and pierce the Crowsnest radar’s protective umbrella. Soon, MACH 5+ hypersonic weapons from Russia and China will be ubiquitous, and the British carriers may not be as survivable.
New sea drones have shown they can take out smaller escort vessels and helicopters. These have proven especially effective when used by the Ukrainians against the Russian navy. Russia and China would likely make good use of anti-ship sea drones in a shooting war with Britain, and the carrier strike group would be vulnerable.
Some prime ministers, such as Boris Johnson and his advisers, were worried about these eventualities and wondered if the carriers had just been built to make the nation enthusiastic again about the Royal Navy. Should the UK have only produced one carrier and plowed the rest of the money into support ships and submarines? Two modern flagships are nice but could have been built for the wrong reasons.
Better Protection of the Vessels Is Needed
Making the Queen Elizabeth carriers more survivable would likely require the Royal Navy to obtain a higher-quality protective system like the American Aegis Weapon System and anti-air interceptors like the Rolling Airframe Missile. Or they could develop indigenous models that would be just as effective. The Brits can’t afford these systems.
However, the British should not give up on the carrier force and retire them. That would be disastrous for the Royal Navy’s morale and make many naval observers and the public furious for wasting so many pounds.
British carriers can still project power like no other ship in the navy. They are not as obsolete as critics say. They have been expensive, and in hindsight, the British should have only built one and focused on the F-35Bs, support ships, escort vessels, and submarines to make the single carrier strike group more powerful.
Now, the British are in for a penny, in for a pound. They must fix the propellor issues on both vessels and ensure that affliction doesn’t happen again. Two carriers for the navy make the force doubly effective. They must be more survivable and devise ways to defend against conventional anti-ship missiles, hypersonic weapons, and drones. This could take more budgetary investment, but that is just the reality of maintaining a modern carrier force.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
