The 65,000-Ton HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales Are the Largest Aircraft Carriers the Royal Navy Ever Built. Neither Has a Catapult, Which Limits Both Ships to 1 Aircraft: The F-35B

Summary and Key Points: HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales displace about 65,000 tons apiece and are the largest warships the Royal Navy has ever built. Neither has a catapult. Neither has an arresting wire. Every American fleet carrier has both, and so does the French Charles de Gaulle, which is why a US Navy flight deck can launch the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the EA-18G Growler, the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and the F-35C. The Royal Navy’s two carriers can fly none of them. They fly the F-35B, and for the next four decades they will fly nothing else.

The Queen Elizabeth-Class Is No US Navy Aircraft Carrier 

HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are the largest carriers ever built for the Royal Navy. Yet they lack one of the defining technical features found aboard American and French fleet aircraft carriers: the aircraft catapult.

This means that Britain must be very intentional about what carrier aircraft it purchases and operates from these ships. Basically, the ships are built around STOVL, which limits Britain’s options to the F-35B.

The F/A-18, EA-18G, E-2D, and F-35C are all non-starters.

In choosing the STOVL system, Britain placed a hard limit on its carrier fleet capabilities, sacrificing flexibility and performance—but perhaps gaining a fleet better aligned with Britain’s ambitions.

Selecting the STOVL System

American carriers use CATOBAR systems, where an aircraft attaches to a catapult and is violently accelerated down the deck to flying speed.

On recovery, a tail hook catches one of the arresting wires and decelerates the aircraft, again violently, in just a few hundred feet. Older American carriers, including the Nimitz-class, use steam catapults.

But the Ford-class introduced the electromagnetic EMALS system.

Both systems require intensive commitments and extensive infrastructure support, including catapult machinery, arresting gear, additional electrical and steam-generation capacity, maintenance personnel, reinforced deck structures, and the specialized training necessary to execute one of aviation’s most complex and demanding operations.

Britain opted not to deal with the extra hassle and infrastructure of CATOBAR operations, choosing instead to build the Queen Elizabeth-class around STOVL and eliminate catapults and arresting wires entirely.

Launching the F-35B

The Queen Elizabeth-class features a distinctive ski-jump bow. With this method, aircraft accelerate conventionally along the deck before climbing the ramp.

The ramp’s upward trajectory buys the aircraft additional time to accelerate while its wings develop lift.

The F-35B, for example, is ideal for the STOBAR system thanks to the Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan with a swiveling rear exhaust nozzle, shaft-driven Rolls-Royce LiftSystem behind the cockpit, and roll-control ducts in the wings.

For landing, the F-35B can transition to powered lift and recover vertically, rather than having to catch a wire, as a jet landing on an American carrier would be required to do.

Britain has also developed Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) techniques, allowing the aircraft to land with some forward velocity, enabling it to carry more fuel and ordnance than would be permitted with a true vertical recovery.

The Drawbacks

But STOVL exacts a performance price.

The F-35B’s lift fan, swiveling nozzle, and associated machinery occupy space and weight that the F-35A/C can devote to fuel, ordnance, or other equipment.

Consider the range of the F-35B compared to the F-35C, with the former operating within a 450 nautical mile radius and the latter operating within a 670 nautical mile radius.

This is because the F-35C has larger wings and greater internal fuel capacity. The F-35C can also carry more ordnance, meaning the F-35B’s strike capacity is reduced by comparison.

The biggest drawback, however, probably doesn’t relate to the F-35B at all, but to the fact that the British can’t launch support aircraft the way the Americans can.

The CATOBAR system permits the launch of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, for example, giving the Americans airborne early warning and command and control.

Similarly, the Americans enjoy use of the EA-18G Growler, a dedicated electronic-attack aircraft—and of course, the F/A-18. Britain won’t have the benefit of such versatility; its performance will be permanently capped.

Different Ambitions

But Britain has a different set of ambitions than the US. Britain doesn’t necessarily need the versatility or high-end performance of US carriers.

The two countries have radically different strategic requirements and thus need different military equipment. America has commitments and presence requirements throughout the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, and Indo-Pacific.

A prospective war in the Pacific creates brutal range requirements, with enormous distances between bases and targets.

Britain, meanwhile, has no plans to defeat China in a carrier air war.

Britain’s obligations are limited to Europe and NATO, where geography is comparatively compact.

Britain also has the benefit of fighting alongside the US and knows that US capabilities will be available indirectly.

In short, Britain didn’t really need a CATOBAR system. The STOVL system meets Britain’s strategic requirements just fine.

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a writer and attorney focused on national security, technology, and political culture. His work has appeared in Tablet, City Journal, The Hill, The Spectator, and The Cipher Brief. He holds a JD from the University of Oregon and a master’s in Global & Joint Program Studies from NYU.