- No major mechanical failures: HMS Queen Elizabeth performed well, with no breakdowns
- Successful exercises: The strike group conducted live-fire exercises, anti-submarine warfare drills, and amphibious landings
- Diplomatic impact: The deployment was welcomed by Japan, South Korea, India, and other partners concerned about China's assertiveness
The Criticisms
Critics argued the deployment was expensive and exposed vulnerabilities:
- Cost: The deployment cost an estimated £250 million (fuel, supplies, maintenance, personnel)
- US dependence: 10 of the 18 F-35Bs were US Marine Corps aircraft, highlighting the UK's shortage of its own jets
- Escort shortage: The Royal Navy had to deploy 2 of its 6 Type 45 destroyers and 2 of its 13 Type 23 frigates, leaving few ships for other tasks (protecting home waters, supporting NATO)
- F-35 loss: One F-35B crashed into the Mediterranean in November 2021 (pilot ejected safely), a £100 million loss
The deployment proved the carriers can operate globally, but also highlighted the UK's limited resources.
The Strategic Debate: Are the Carriers Worth It?
The carriers are the most controversial element of UK defence policy, with fierce debate about whether they are worth the cost.
The Case For Carriers
Supporters argue carriers are essential for:
- Power projection: Carriers allow the UK to operate globally without relying on foreign bases. Britain has few overseas bases (Cyprus, Gibraltar, Diego Garcia, the Falklands), so carriers provide mobile airfields that can deploy anywhere.
- Deterrence: Carriers signal Britain's commitment to allies and deter adversaries. The 2021 Indo-Pacific deployment sent a message to China that the UK is willing to defend freedom of navigation and support partners.
- Flexibility: Carriers can conduct a wide range of missions: air strikes, anti-submarine warfare, humanitarian relief, evacuations, and presence operations.
- Prestige: Carriers are symbols of national power. Only a handful of countries operate large carriers (US, UK, China, France, India), and Britain's carriers reinforce its status as a major military power.
The Case Against Carriers
Critics argue carriers are:
- Too expensive: £6.2 billion to build and £500 million per year to operate is unaffordable for a navy that lacks enough frigates, submarines, and personnel. The money could buy more useful capabilities (more Type 26 frigates, more F-35s, more submarines).
- Vulnerable: Carriers are large, high-value targets. Modern anti-ship missiles (Russian Zircon, Chinese DF-21D "carrier killer") can strike from hundreds of miles away, and carriers require extensive escorts (destroyers, frigates, submarines) to protect them. In a war with China or Russia, carriers might be too vulnerable to deploy.
- Under-utilised: The UK can only deploy one carrier at a time, and only with a reduced air group (18-24 F-35Bs instead of 40). The carriers are not being used to their full potential.
- Wrong priority: The UK faces threats closer to home (Russia in the North Atlantic, terrorism in the Middle East) that do not require carriers. The money would be better spent on capabilities for high-intensity warfare in Europe (artillery, air defence, armoured vehicles).
International Comparisons: How Do UK Carriers Compare?
United States: The Supercarrier Fleet
The US Navy operates 11 supercarriers (10 Nimitz-class, 1 Ford-class), each:
- 100,000 tonnes (50% larger than UK carriers)
- Nuclear-powered (unlimited range, no need to refuel)
- 75-90 aircraft (double the UK's 40)
- CATOBAR (catapults and arrestor wires, allowing heavier, longer-range aircraft)
- 5,000+ crew (three times the UK's 1,600)
US carriers are in a different league. The UK carriers are impressive but cannot match US capability.
France: Charles de Gaulle
France operates one carrier, Charles de Gaulle:
- 42,000 tonnes (smaller than UK carriers)
- Nuclear-powered
- 40 aircraft (Rafale fighters and helicopters)
- CATOBAR (can launch heavier aircraft than UK carriers)
Charles de Gaulle is older (commissioned 2001) and smaller, but its nuclear propulsion and catapults give it advantages over UK carriers.
China: Growing Carrier Fleet
China operates three carriers (Liaoning, Shandong, Fujian) with more under construction:
- 60,000-80,000 tonnes
- Conventionally powered (Liaoning, Shandong); nuclear propulsion planned for future carriers
- 40-50 aircraft (J-15 fighters, similar to Russian Su-33)
China is rapidly building carrier capability and will likely surpass the UK in numbers and capability within a decade.
The Future: Can the UK Sustain Two Carriers?
The Royal Navy faces difficult choices:
Option 1: Maintain Both Carriers
This requires:
- More F-35Bs: At least 90 aircraft (£9 billion) to equip both carriers
- More personnel: Recruit and retain enough sailors to crew both carriers and their escorts
- More escorts: Build more Type 26 frigates and Type 45 destroyers to protect both carriers
This is the most expensive option and would require a significant increase in the defence budget.
Option 2: Operate One Carrier, Mothball the Other
The UK could operate one carrier (HMS Queen Elizabeth) and place the other (HMS Prince of Wales) in extended readiness (mothballed). This would:
- Save money: Around £250 million per year in operating costs
- Free up personnel: 1,600 sailors could be reassigned to other ships
- Maintain surge capability: The second carrier could be reactivated in a crisis (though this would take months)
This is politically difficult (admitting the UK cannot afford two carriers) but financially sensible.
Option 3: Sell or Lease One Carrier
The UK could sell or lease one carrier to an ally (India, Australia, or Japan have been mentioned as potential buyers). This would:
- Recover some cost: A carrier might sell for £2-3 billion
- Strengthen alliances: Leasing to an ally would deepen defence cooperation
- Reduce burden: The UK would only need to support one carrier
This is politically controversial (selling a flagship asset) but has been quietly discussed in defence circles.
The Bottom Line
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are the largest and most powerful warships ever built for Britain, costing £6.2 billion to build and £500 million per year to operate. They provide global reach and power projection, as demonstrated by the 2021 Indo-Pacific deployment. However, the Royal Navy has only 48 F-35Bs (enough for one carrier), manning shortages mean only one carrier can be operational at a time, and HMS Prince of Wales has suffered repeated mechanical failures. Critics argue the carriers are too expensive and absorb resources that could fund more frigates, submarines, or aircraft. Supporters counter that carriers are essential for global power projection and deterrence. The debate reflects a fundamental question: what kind of navy does Britain need, and can it afford the one it has built? Without more aircraft, more personnel, and more escorts, the carriers will remain under-utilised—impressive symbols of British power, but not fully effective military assets.
Key takeaways
- HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales cost £6.2 billion to build and £500 million per year to operate and maintain
- The Royal Navy has only 48 F-35B fighter jets for both carriers—enough for one carrier air group with no reserves for training or attrition
- Manning shortages mean only one carrier can be operational at a time, with the other in refit or reduced readiness
- HMS Prince of Wales has suffered repeated mechanical failures, spending more time in dock than at sea since commissioning in 2019
- Critics argue the carriers are too large and expensive for the UK's needs, absorbing resources that could fund more frigates, submarines, or aircraft
Sources
Related
Daily Junction.mobi portal