Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

One of the cons of a short ranged aircraft by comparison to other carrier borne aircraft is the possibility that the carrier may have to itself be closer to shore to reach inland targets , the risks to a carrier could be many perhaps adding the risks to the aircraft are considered the lesser .drop pods etc.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by abc123 »

WhiteWhale wrote:

The only Cat the RN could afford to fit on Big Liz at the next refit has four legs and meows. And even then it's upkeep and maintenance will come out of the sailors wage.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
QEC Eye in the SKY
Member
Posts: 277
Joined: 27 May 2015, 12:51
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by QEC Eye in the SKY »

imperialman wrote:
QEC Eye in the SKY wrote: Can't find the source of the article (could be the Register or defence journal) but it's saying that QE will be fitted with EMALS at her first refit. Can we categorically put this theory to bed and state that EMALS won't be added to either QE or PW and that never will be adapated - as far as you're aware - to a Cats n Traps carrier for the future. Cheers

Read it only a few weeks back so someone may be able to supply the source?
Wasn't the UKDJ, the closest I can find to that in The Register is this but it wouldn't appear to make that claim: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/1 ... ld_r_ford/

Thanks, that's the nearest but not quite the article I read.

User avatar
QEC Eye in the SKY
Member
Posts: 277
Joined: 27 May 2015, 12:51
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by QEC Eye in the SKY »

WhiteWhale wrote:
QEC Eye in the SKY wrote:

Can't find the source of the article (could be the Register or defence journal) but it's saying that QE will be fitted with EMALS at her first refit. Can we categorically put this theory to bed and state that EMALS won't be added to either QE or PW and that never will be adapated - as far as you're aware - to a Cats n Traps carrier for the future.


Cheers


Read it only a few weeks back so someone may be able to supply the source?

The only Cat the RN could afford to fit on Big Liz at the next refit has four legs and meows. And even then it's upkeep and maintenance will come out of the sailors wage.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

abc123 wrote:
WhiteWhale wrote:

The only Cat the RN could afford to fit on Big Liz at the next refit has four legs and meows. And even then it's upkeep and maintenance will come out of the sailors wage.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
The good news is that the manufacture phase of this system on average is just 65 days. An initial operational capability is usually achieved within a few weeks of delivery. Full operational capability takes about a year after delivery. In fact, it is possible to deliver multiple such systems in a very short time. However, coordination of such a multiple system capability (herding) is notoriously difficult.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by jimthelad »

Pseudo wrote:I could easily see a flight of MV-22's with VARS kits being deployed alongside USMC F-35B's in multilateral operations. Other than that I wonder if something similar to VARS could be developed for Merlin, because that's the only way I see the RN getting a tanker capability for the QEC in the foreseeable future.
Excellent stealth and fully NVG compliant but poor operational discipline and easily seduced by soft countermeasures (ball of wool).

Thorvicson
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 20 Mar 2017, 09:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Thorvicson »

seaspear wrote:Is there any merit equipping R.A.F Voyager type aircraft to carry out this role ,they would not be ship borne of course but having a longer range than the tilt rotor porposal should still reach most theatres
The trouble is keeping a ready presence in theatre, with only 14 aircraft max and away from friendly airbases the Carriers are designed to conduct round the clock strikes as well as maintaining CAP you can't really keep a Voyager ever resent over the fleet for more than a couple of hours max. If its something like Afghanistan or Iraq then we pooled our Tankers with Allied forces to maintain a Tanker presence near the combat zone.

The V-22 would be nearer the carriers maybe top up a Strike group or keep the CAP in the air whilst a strike group returns, its a force enhancer and risk reduction option.

However its all moot for now, as I've said before the focus from now to 2025 is getting the Carriers, F-35Bs and crowsnest into service and carrier strike operational. In the meantime we will study the USMC evaluation and operation of the V-22 in both the Tanker and the COD roles to determine if they are :- i) A must have force multiplier, ii) A would like force enhancer, iii) pass - They are OK but money more effective spent elsewhere.

Thorvicson
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 20 Mar 2017, 09:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Thorvicson »

I suspect the Cat & Trap is from somebody misreading a 2010/11 article and misquoting it in a new article. Back then the F-35B was extremely flakey which is what prompted the SDSR switch. Now the F-35B is pretty much mostly there and thus will be fit for purpose by the time we go operational. It was probably dragged up when Trump started making noises about the F-35 programme costs but that was more aimed at the F-35C which could be covered by Super Hornet production if necessary, rather than the F-35B.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

In a time of conflict the carrier would be carrying far larger than a dozen so is there possibility of an f35b used as buddy buddy role

Thorvicson
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 20 Mar 2017, 09:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Thorvicson »

seaspear wrote:In a time of conflict the carrier would be carrying far larger than a dozen so is there possibility of an f35b used as buddy buddy role
They would need to develop and test the kit first on the F-35B, the USMC are investing in the V-22 Osprey as its tanker solution.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Modifications for this kit to be carried maybe if possible cheaper than Osprey ,with more capability

User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by swoop »

QEC Eye in the SKY wrote:Can't find the source of the article (could be the Register or defence journal) but it's saying that QE will be fitted with EMALS at her first refit. Can we categorically put this theory to bed and state that EMALS won't be added to either QE or PW and that never will be adapated - as far as you're aware - to a Cats n Traps carrier for the future.
Goodness knows how the nails keep coming out of the coffin lid on this one.
Dead, buried, never to be exhumed.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Buddy tankers more capable than a V22 tanker? I don't think so.

Wouldn't bet on seeing buddy on the F35b either, the USN must have buddy incase their recovery equipment breaks, our recovery equipment can't break.

There are very few occasions where a Voyager would not be available to support carrier ops. There are lots of airfields capable and willing to support an airbus, much fewer willing to support F35.

For the few times the RAF cant find a base to support carrier ops, we will have to borrow some tankers for the USMC, or maybe in a decades time we will be in a position to operate some of our own.
@LandSharkUK

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

When I was thinking of capability I was thinking of a degree of stealth even with a load under the wings ,certainly more speed, ,situational awareness ,could not comment on range of course

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

shark bait wrote:Buddy tankers more capable than a V22 tanker? I don't think so.
Agreed. But is the V-22 even worth bothering with as a tanker? It's no Voyager. By the figures quoted 1 V-22 in tanker configuration couldn't even fill up 1 F-35B. Yes it could top a strike up or CAP, but how far away could it do that? If we wanted to lengthen the F-35B's effective strike range a far cheaper and more useful way would be to integrate Storm Shadow. It would provide far more range than V-22 could.

When you see a pic of a V-22 refueling an F-35B it becomes apparent that buddy refueling with underwing tanks gives almost as much fuel to transfer as a V-22. Personally I can't see the point, I know CV-22 brings COD and Special Forces insertion etc as well but add in the costs for purchase, personnel etc I'd rather have a few more F-35B on board and use Chinook for limited COD and insertion.

http://gizmodo.com/bells-newest-tiltrot ... 1676120011

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »



This pic does rather put the QE Class' armament in perspective. ESSM, RAM and Phalanx. Approaching GRF from the rear as a bogey might not be the best idea..

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Air2Air refuel has 3 aspects, as I understand.
- refuel near the enemy, good for deep attack.
- refuel just after the take off, to enable full bomb carriage with full fuel carriage. I think this can extend the range by 50% or so.
- refuel for CAP
F35 (especially F35B) suffers from short range and short CAP duration so air2air refuel is not bad, I guess. F35B based air2air refuel, as F18 is doing, will be a very good option for CVFs to out-range enemy long-range ASM.

The only problem is USN will not be looking for it, because they have F18 for a moment, and UAV-based refuel program to come. So, UK itself needs to fund it. But, it will be as simple as just using the system on F18 to be adopted for F35B, I guess. = not that difficult. Storm shadow will be an option, but it is a single purpose "bomb". Locating F35B (which is a integrated sensor monster) deep into the enemy region will be of great importance, and I think even cutting 2-3 F35B to pay for integrating A2A refuel system only gives RN gain and no loss, because both the air-strike and air-defense efficiency (in other words, flexibility) will improve a lot.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Air2Air refuel has 3 aspects, as I understand.
- refuel near the enemy, good for deep attack.
- refuel just after the take off, to enable full bomb carriage with full fuel carriage. I think this can extend the range by 50% or so.
- refuel for CAP
F35 (especially F35B) suffers from short range and short CAP duration so air2air refuel is not bad, I guess. F35B based air2air refuel, as F18 is doing, will be a very good option for CVFs to out-range enemy long-range ASM.
The refuel after takeoff is primarily for CATOBAR as a strike takes time to form up. With STOVL the strike is launched much quicker so the fuel losses aren't as great. Refueling nearer the enemy sounds great but...a V-22 will be able to top tanks off, but how far can it actually carry that fuel load? 100 miles with the time necessary to fuel 3-4 aircraft? That's not a lot.

The only real use for V-22 for the RN is primarily COD/Troop transport with tanking a bonus. But given we seem to survive without extensive COD now it seems a niche capability at best. People always mention carrying additional F-135. But given QE has heavy RAS that could shift an F-135 from MARS SSS it seems moot. There wll be that much space free on QE that having a couple of £8m engine spares aboard makes more sense than a couple of £80m V-22.

It's a lovely pipe dream but given all of the other things needed (CAMM fit, additional Merlin, Chinook powered blade fold, MARS SSS order, additional AAW ships, T-26 etc) it should rightly be bottom of the priority list.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Sorry, air2air refuel after take off is, as I read in some article, to use as many "maximum lift-off capability" on bombs (which is not full, I guess, even with ski-jump), and then fill the fuel tank "after" the take off.

I think V22 will not come. So I am talking about adding A2A refuel capability to F35B itself.
I am not proposing to cut anything else to get this capability, but cut F35B itself by a few.
The main use I guess is to
- locate a few F35B as an integrated forward sensor near the enemy, for long period.
- fly CAP F35B for longer time so that CAP can be covered with less F35Bs in rotation.

But I admit it is not easy.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

A consideration for U.S.N carriers is that the decks have to be clear for returning aircraft ,can have the fa18 doing the buddy job whilst aircraft are waiting

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by R686 »

F35B has greater combat radius than Harrier anyway so you doctrine will naturally expand once CVF and F35B become operational.

Operationally I don't believe a V-22 inspired AAR variant is worth the cost involved, when a majority of the time it's likely that the operational area will be in Europe and the Gulf with potencial operating bases for large AAR aircraft to refuel F35B if required, unless it's short notice operationally(809 Squadron Belize overflight by Blackburn Buccaneers) imperative there should be comprehensive planning procces for any long range strike.

However, a number of Marine Corps sources indicated that they were skeptical of the utility of the MV-22 in the tanker role. They pointed out that the MV-22 does not carry enough fuel to be an effective tanker for a thirsty aircraft like the F-35B. Indeed, by some estimates, the Osprey could only off-load about 15 minutes of additional fuel to an aircraft like the F-35—where even the short-ranged B-model carries about 13,000lbs of fuel internally.


Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I can see some advantage in getting some V22s but not for the sole role of AAR - they would be good for longer range OTH assault as they have twice the combat radius than the Chinook, and could to transfer additional troops to the flat top from distance.

If the UK cannot afford the basics already, I'd stick to the buddy tank approach to fill any Voyager gap.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by shark bait »

A v22 tanker adds 180 miles onto the combat radius of a pair of F35, which is not bad. Nothing to shout about today, but as we begin to mature our carrier operation it may be worth revisiting.

Their are certainly higher priorities for the time being, and the RN are already getting a massive leap over the harrier days.
@LandSharkUK

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

The f35b though a good aircraft does have an issue with the short range compared to contemporaries like Rafale ,to have a buddy sstem which is not expensive in the scheme of things adds capability and capacity

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

AAR for carrier borne aircraft isn't principally about extending strike range.

It's about making sure that aircraft that need to go into a holding pattern on return from ops due to, for instance, the deck being obstructed, don't drop into the sea. There's sometimes a lack of diversionary airfields in the ocean.

We never had AAR for Harrier carrier borne ops - but like most things connected with Harriers and carriers we got away with it...

Image

... most of the time.

V-22 would be a very nice option IMHO.

Post Reply