F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by shark bait »

A V22 tanker has potential to add 200 miles to the radius of a pair of F35, which is neither insignificant or incredible.

The Navy has pretty much zero purchasing power here, it will all depend what the USMC want.
@LandSharkUK

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by topman »

shark bait wrote:Kinda difficult to fit a voyager onboard.

The case for tanks ought to be huge, the Range of an F35 is not enough to keep the carriers safe when striking a peer opponent.
The tankers will operate from airbases and support all aircraft that need aar whether they come from an airbase or the sea as they always have done. They are both as reliant on large voyager sized tankers, Shader, no fly zones, telic, herrick etc all heavily reliant on aar.

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

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by shark bait »

"as they always have done"? How many harriers were refuelled in 82?

They cant guarantee tankers will always be available, especially in a peer conflict. If they could, there would be no point in carriers at all.
@LandSharkUK

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Who and what re-fuelled the 2 x Buccaneers on there way to Belize in '72 then ? :mrgreen:

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Forgot to mention; On the way back as well. :mrgreen:

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by topman »

shark bait wrote:"as they always have done"? How many harriers were refuelled in 82?

They cant guarantee tankers will always be available, especially in a peer conflict. If they could, there would be no point in carriers at all.
I think you took that part out of my post out of context. I listed Ops that will have used large AAR tankers thousands of times.
Of course there are one offs, but take the number of limited ops with them, then look at the Ops, again from sea and land, that use them day in day out. The latter list would be far larger.

Then think, do we want to base our limited spending on rare scenarios?

I'm not saying that they will never ever be designed nor that we should never buy them, just that we need to think carefully about priorities.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by topman »

Scimitar54 wrote:Who and what re-fuelled the 2 x Buccaneers on there way to Belize in '72 then ? :mrgreen:
I would imagine we'd use them for a little bit more than that sort of thing...

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Ron5 »

Typical RAF nonsense.

The idea that land based tankers will always be available when the carriers need them is right up there with "we don't need carriers because the RAF can always supply air cover to the fleet" or "who needs carriers to bomb Libya when we can fly missions from the UK" or "stand back and watch us take out the Falklands airfield with our mighty Vulcan".

Reason #4,094 why the Navy needs to own its aircraft.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by topman »

Ron5 wrote:Typical RAF nonsense.

The idea that land based tankers will always be available when the carriers need them is right up there with "we don't need carriers because the RAF can always supply air cover to the fleet" or "who needs carriers to bomb Libya when we can fly missions from the UK" or "stand back and watch us take out the Falklands airfield with our mighty Vulcan".

Reason #4,094 why the Navy needs to own its aircraft.
That's a pretty impressive load of nonsense packed into one post. Well done you.

User avatar
cockneyjock1974
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by cockneyjock1974 »

According to big Mike Eagan (RIP) who worked in the Pentagon. The next question asked after "where are the carriers?" is "where are the AAR tankers?"

Topman is correct. Remember buddy buddy refueling in the USN, is primarily to get bolters back on deck. The Belize operation was only feasible because the rotary bomb bay was removed and replaced by a fuel tank. As a result both Buccaneers were unarmed when they buzzed Belize city and then it was only for 10 minutes. Not taking anything away from the effort though, it prevented a war.

Oh and can't remember who said the Bucs had conformal fuel tanks, they didn't. It was "slipper tanks" you don't see these anymore, which is a shame.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Same primary reason for the RN back in the day, but AAR is refuelling nonetheless, and the example of the Belize operation shows what can be done if the need arises. By the time any Victor (Voyager) Tankers could have been arranged, the operation would have had no point, because it would have been too late to prevent the invasion.
That is why the Carrier was sent, it was the ONLY way to send a powerful enough message at the time.
With the carrier getting closer, armed follow-up missions would have got easier and easier but with AAR still being required at least for a while.

User avatar
cockneyjock1974
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by cockneyjock1974 »

Scimitar54 wrote:Same primary reason for the RN back in the day, but AAR is refuelling nonetheless, and the example of the Belize operation shows what can be done if the need arises. By the time any Victor (Voyager) Tankers could have been arranged, the operation would have had no point, because it would have been too late to prevent the invasion.
That is why the Carrier was sent, it was the ONLY way to send a powerful enough message at the time.
With the carrier getting closer, armed follow-up missions would have got easier and easier but with AAR still being required at least for a while.
You tell me a single aircraft in service right now that can have its guts ripped out and turned into a flying gas tank? The Belize mission was unique as was the aircraft.
With regards to the carrier getting closer and negating AAR, it would have been too late the Guatemalans would have invaded.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Ron5 »

cockneyjock1974 wrote:Oh and can't remember who said the Bucs had conformal fuel tanks, they didn't.
They did. Thicker bomb bay doors.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Ron5 »

topman wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Typical RAF nonsense.

The idea that land based tankers will always be available when the carriers need them is right up there with "we don't need carriers because the RAF can always supply air cover to the fleet" or "who needs carriers to bomb Libya when we can fly missions from the UK" or "stand back and watch us take out the Falklands airfield with our mighty Vulcan".

Reason #4,094 why the Navy needs to own its aircraft.
That's a pretty impressive load of nonsense packed into one post. Well done you.
Meanwhile little light blue men are whispering in the ministry corridors: "we have enough F-35's, let's cancel the rest of the buy and spend the budget on Tempest"

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

The need for on board AAR, COD let alone allowing the RM to be inserted faster and from far greater distance should be making a pretty strong case for the V-22 even though it is expensive. A purchase of enough to equip two squadrons would allow the FAA to properly support the carriers and the F-35s and if required support the RM. £2Bn over five to six years would cover things at a guess, but as always it s comes down to priorities and a willingness to make a decision.

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

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by R686 »

cockneyjock1974 wrote:
You tell me a single aircraft in service right now that can have its guts ripped out and turned into a flying gas tank? The Belize mission was unique as was the aircraft.
With regards to the carrier getting closer and negating AAR, it would have been too late the Guatemalans would have invaded.
Well that’s a loaded question your talking internally so you can actully say even a B1Lancer can carry extra fuel internally but in reality just about all fighter aircraft be that in the maritime domain or not can carry extra fuel with ferry tank or expendable drop tanks, currently the only exception is the F35 as it currently has greater range than most on internal fuel as those with expendable drop tanks, they toyed with the idea as I’m lead to believe the the hard points are still plumbed for extra fuel but only did limited testing on actual tanks designed for the F35 but that project gave way to more priorities in development

As to the Belize mission from Ark Royal, they way you portray the event was like some modifications last minute to the aircraft outside what was developed, the aircraft was developed for additional ferry tanks within the bomb bay. But if I remember correctly from reading the mission sometime ago four aircraft were involved two for the actual overflight and two to top up with buddy refueling, but I’d have to find my book to refresh the memory

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

R686 wrote:the only exception is the F35 as it currently has greater range than most on internal fuel as those with expendable drop tanks
yes, currently. As "we" have the FA-18 as a "peace time bridge" between A-12 and F-35... neither of the last two have 'long legs'
R686 wrote: from reading the mission sometime ago four aircraft were involved two for the actual overflight and two to top up with buddy refueling
I think the chain (all Bucs) was a bit longer than that, but someone around here will have read the book.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by R686 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
R686 wrote: the only exception is the F35 as it currently has greater range than most on internal fuel as those with expendable drop tanks

yes, currently. As "we" have the FA-18 as a "peace time bridge" between A-12 and F-35... neither of the last two have 'long legs'

Not sure exactly why you are quoting the above aircraft as the UK do not have those in inventory. Unfortunately one can only compare with what's currently available, even so where they are in the maritime domain the F45B with the least range still goes further than a F/A-18E/F.

There has been a lot of unfair criticism when the RAAF retired the F111 and replacing them with Super Hornets, but one also must remember that the F111 at the end was constrained in its radius of action by the Classic Hornet fleet as it was no longer viable to enter contested airspace unescorted. its a pity that Lockheed didn't pursue the FB-22 medium bomber concept back in 2002


https://www.google.com/url?client=inter ... ovzPOtfHVT

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Only four (4) x Buccaneers involved; 2 x "strike" aircraft and 2 x "tankers". Sorry CJ74, but the principle is just as valuable for today's aircraft. If you don't have onboard tanking, you are missing out on the capabilities of the assets that you do have. The reason that you have carriers is that you are not reliant on land bases and the political considerations that flow from that. Using land based tanking for operations in far-off places can negate this advantage in an instant.

But the first Sortie got there in time to send the appropriate warning and there was no invasion, so further missions were unnecessary. Prevention being better than cure. :mrgreen:

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

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by R686 »

Lord Jim wrote:The need for on board AAR, COD let alone allowing the RM to be inserted faster and from far greater distance should be making a pretty strong case for the V-22 even though it is expensive. A purchase of enough to equip two squadrons would allow the FAA to properly support the carriers and the F-35s and if required support the RM. £2Bn over five to six years would cover things at a guess, but as always it s comes down to priorities and a willingness to make a decision.
Agree to a point in regards to V-22, the only thing I Question is the AAR role.

Its been said that the USMC v-22 AAR the extra fuel will be around 10000lb or roughly 4500ltrs, a F35B holds 13100lb or approx. 5942ltrs.

How many V-22 are you expecting to be carried on the carrier? well for redundancy one would expect 3-4 aircraft as a minimum, and 1 ready to use as AAR, lets see how affective v-22 AAR will be. That 10000lb is roughly 76% of the total fuel on a F35B if all of its transferred, a 2 ship flight if distributed evenly is 5000lb or 38% a 4 ship flight would get less than 20% or 2500lb or roughly 1100ltrs or about 173nmi

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

So you would use two (or more) of them in the AAR role, i.e. one for each F35 on the sortie.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by topman »

Ron5 wrote:
topman wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Typical RAF nonsense.

The idea that land based tankers will always be available when the carriers need them is right up there with "we don't need carriers because the RAF can always supply air cover to the fleet" or "who needs carriers to bomb Libya when we can fly missions from the UK" or "stand back and watch us take out the Falklands airfield with our mighty Vulcan".

Reason #4,094 why the Navy needs to own its aircraft.
That's a pretty impressive load of nonsense packed into one post. Well done you.
Meanwhile little light blue men are whispering in the ministry corridors: "we have enough F-35's, let's cancel the rest of the buy and spend the budget on Tempest"
Bless...

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by topman »

Scimitar54 wrote:So you would use two (or more) of them in the AAR role, i.e. one for each F35 on the sortie.
Precisely why you'd be stuck with large aar aircraft. if you can fit them on on board, it's not big enough.


Speaking more generally to no one in particular:
For one offs you can get away with small top up tankers that might be onboard, and these situations do crop up every know and again and there's a couple of examples already in this thread.

However when you're talking of day in day out, over decades in large long running Ops like Shader, NFZ, Herrick, Telic etc the US and other carriers that were involved putting aircraft up regularly, they needed aircraft like sentry and large AAR tankers that flew from airbases and they got the support they need. Without them it would have been extremely difficult or in many cases impossible without them.
I wouldn't like to guess how many sorties it'd be but it'd be in the tens of thousands over all those ops and all those years where they needed and got that support simply because without them it's not happening outside of limited short term Ops.

So, in short, you have to balance off how often and how useful vs a limited budget.

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

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by shark bait »

cockneyjock1974 wrote:Remember buddy buddy refueling in the USN, is primarily to get bolters back on deck
And now they're moving past that, specifically developing a tanker for extended range operations against an opponent that can deny a carrier access.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Defiance wrote: reason behind the MQ-25 these days was to free up the F/A-18 fleet for actual combat ops
Me too. Isn't the former a special build F-18 (look at the tails etc; did they ditch stealthiness? One would have thought that refuelling F-35s would have benefited from some... or will it be done at such a distance from 'end stop' that RCS is not a major concern?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply