Semantics I know but it’s not the USN but USMC, but I’m sure the USN will take advantage where they can.shark bait wrote:And now they're moving past that, specifically developing a tanker for extended range operations against an opponent that can deny a carrier access.cockneyjock1974 wrote:Remember buddy buddy refueling in the USN, is primarily to get bolters back on deck
F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
The USN are also developing a tanker to keep the carriers outside China's bubble.
Tankers wont just be for bolters, they will be absolutely necessary if a carrier air wing is ever pitted against modern ground based aircraft. If the UK doesn't follow suite they risk having a carrier that cant make it into the fight.
Tankers wont just be for bolters, they will be absolutely necessary if a carrier air wing is ever pitted against modern ground based aircraft. If the UK doesn't follow suite they risk having a carrier that cant make it into the fight.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
In that case we can park it for a while...because UK F-35B will not have the weaponry available to engage a peer level opponent, except in an air to air capability until at least 2025-26. Until then we're restricted to Asraam, Amraam C-5, Amraam D (from 2021-22) and Paveway IV.shark bait wrote: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.
Paveway IV is very good, but I would have thought against a peer level opponent that you'd really want something with more standoff capability, even from an F-35.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
yeah it's certainly not a priority today, but as the RN start to mature the capability it should become a more pressing issue.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Absolutely the operations over Afghanistan from US carriers were massively dependent on land based AAR in the early days, primarily from the RAF.topman wrote: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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I am not saying that we do not need Voyager, far from it. It is just that it does, depending on the location of the area of “Carrier Operations” have its limits. AAR from a voyager would be preferable, provided that it’s presence is possible and availability not an issue.
Having options increases flexibility and capability.
Having options increases flexibility and capability.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
The RN is not the US navy a UK aircraft will not operate like a US navy. This obsession will make them unaffordable.
V22 “tanking” is an expensive luxury the RN cannot afford or needs. Everyone can come up with exploding penguin hypotheticals to justify anything you like.
In the world of finite budgets if buy one thing you don’t buy another. Soo what are you giving up for it? 2 type 26? The type 31 program? The POW?
The ranges you need to go beyond before voyager f35 combinations run into issues for UK operations is extremely large.
V22 “tanking” is an expensive luxury the RN cannot afford or needs. Everyone can come up with exploding penguin hypotheticals to justify anything you like.
In the world of finite budgets if buy one thing you don’t buy another. Soo what are you giving up for it? 2 type 26? The type 31 program? The POW?
The ranges you need to go beyond before voyager f35 combinations run into issues for UK operations is extremely large.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Agreed. When you look at the fuel offload from a V-22 tanker you have to wonder if it would add much. It would be far, far down the list of priorities for me, near the bottom almost. The MQ-25 makes sense for the USN on a lot of levels, but the extending strike range one is the least convincing bit, again due to the fuel offload. If you want to get more range for a strike....buy a bigger missile...SW1 wrote:The ranges you need to go beyond before voyager f35 combinations run into issues for UK operations is extremely large.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Bang on the money here what the UK needs is a long range stealth missile that can be carried on the wing of a F-35b without reducing the stealth of the jet same goes for wing tanksTimmymagic wrote:Agreed. When you look at the fuel offload from a V-22 tanker you have to wonder if it would add much. It would be far, far down the list of priorities for me, near the bottom almost. The MQ-25 makes sense for the USN on a lot of levels, but the extending strike range one is the least convincing bit, again due to the fuel offload. If you want to get more range for a strike....buy a bigger missile...
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
If you take this stupid argument to it’s conclusion, why have the F35 or any other strike aircraft at all, “just get a bigger missile” and launch it from a ship (I mean the real thing and not an AIR ship).
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
It is impossible to engineer a wing mounted solution that does not adversely affect the radar signature of the jet.Tempest414 wrote:Bang on the money here what the UK needs is a long range stealth missile that can be carried on the wing of a F-35b without reducing the stealth of the jet same goes for wing tanksTimmymagic wrote:Agreed. When you look at the fuel offload from a V-22 tanker you have to wonder if it would add much. It would be far, far down the list of priorities for me, near the bottom almost. The MQ-25 makes sense for the USN on a lot of levels, but the extending strike range one is the least convincing bit, again due to the fuel offload. If you want to get more range for a strike....buy a bigger missile...
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Ino this maybe hard to grasp for some but not everything revolves around how far a target is from a ship.Scimitar54 wrote:If you take this stupid argument to it’s conclusion, why have the F35 or any other strike aircraft at all, “just get a bigger missile” and launch it from a ship (I mean the real thing and not an AIR ship).
Against fixed strategic targets missiles have become the go to choice but the more dynamic a target the need for up to date positions becomes a prerequisite.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Some interesting little nuggets can be found here the preceding parts are not really to important in regards to the UK but does give an overall indication on what is required in the way of enablers to increase the effectiveness of long range fighter aircraft, part 5 starts with the B just waiting on further parts to come on line.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/proje ... -you-free/
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/proje ... ore-bases/
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/proje ... lications/
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/proje ... g-further/
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/proje ... can-it-go/
Oh and the study done by the USMC
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/v ... nwc-review
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/proje ... -you-free/
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/proje ... ore-bases/
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/proje ... lications/
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/proje ... g-further/
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/proje ... can-it-go/
Oh and the study done by the USMC
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/v ... nwc-review
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
In other words there is a lot more to it then meets the eye. Especially when operating from Forward Operating Bases. Pity our A400 fleet cant do some air refuelling as well.R686 wrote:Some interesting little nuggets can be found here the preceding parts are not really to important in regards to the UK but does give an overall indication on what is required in the way of enablers to increase the effectiveness of long range fighter aircraft, part 5 starts with the B just waiting on further parts to come on line.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
This is an argument that is sometimes used against the JSM's inability to be carried internally on the B variant. But with a range of up to 300 miles does it actually matter? You could launch far beyond the engagement envelope of enemy defences, same with a future cruise missile. Even if you were flying at a higher altitude where the enemy radar had line of sight to you at that range there aren't many or even any radars that are going to pick up the signature of a pylon. And even if they could what are they going to do?SW1 wrote:It is impossible to engineer a wing mounted solution that does not adversely affect the radar signature of the jet.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I've gotten a little lost on what the we're all arguing about.
I do know that assuming & basing capabilities on the assumption the next set of operations will be like the last set, is a really bad idea.
I do know that the case for UK carriers was NOT to be able to fight the next airwar over countries within range of friendly airbases and/or friendly overflight. To be specific, they were NOT acquired to facilitate the next invasion of Iraq.
I do know that the USN were, and are, extremely unhappy that their early role against Afghanistan was so dependent on land based AAR. That goes completely against their view that they should be self-sufficient. To that end, the next generation of USN tactical fighters will have much longer range (F-35C) and their carriers will have dedicated tankers to extend that range further (MQ-25).
I do know that the case for UK carriers was not dependent on the universal availability of land based AAR.
My personal point is that the RN who will be required to operate away from land based AAR, would benefit from longer ranged F-35's a lot more than the RAF flying from land bases bcause of AAR. And that the first step to that longer range is drop tanks. They're relatively cheap and cheerful and the F-35 was designed to accommodate them. Lockheed has said they are developing some and several countries have expressed interest. I'm betting the UK is right up there.
I doubt if the UK defence budget would ever run to a dedicated carrier tanker. I also think the V-22 is a pretty poor one.
I do know that assuming & basing capabilities on the assumption the next set of operations will be like the last set, is a really bad idea.
I do know that the case for UK carriers was NOT to be able to fight the next airwar over countries within range of friendly airbases and/or friendly overflight. To be specific, they were NOT acquired to facilitate the next invasion of Iraq.
I do know that the USN were, and are, extremely unhappy that their early role against Afghanistan was so dependent on land based AAR. That goes completely against their view that they should be self-sufficient. To that end, the next generation of USN tactical fighters will have much longer range (F-35C) and their carriers will have dedicated tankers to extend that range further (MQ-25).
I do know that the case for UK carriers was not dependent on the universal availability of land based AAR.
My personal point is that the RN who will be required to operate away from land based AAR, would benefit from longer ranged F-35's a lot more than the RAF flying from land bases bcause of AAR. And that the first step to that longer range is drop tanks. They're relatively cheap and cheerful and the F-35 was designed to accommodate them. Lockheed has said they are developing some and several countries have expressed interest. I'm betting the UK is right up there.
I doubt if the UK defence budget would ever run to a dedicated carrier tanker. I also think the V-22 is a pretty poor one.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
And the long range missile thing: SW1 makes an excellent point, they be no good unless you have targeting info.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
If , and I admit it is a big "If" we eventually went down the V-22 route I would like to think we tried to get the most out of it. Yes the fuel carried but the platform is not great, but it would allow a F-35 CAP to stay on station longer, and allow the jet to take of with a greater loadout, less internal fuel, topping off before heading out on their mission. But beyond that it would make an excellent COD platform, could replace the Merlin in the AEW role allowing all of the latter to concentrate on ASW duties, and of course it would be the ideal platform with which to launch long range missions with SF and/or Royal Marines.
This and the platform entered into the US Army next generation platform programme would be a very good match for vertical lift for the FAA at some point in the future, replacing the Commando Merlins, and possible also the RAF's Pumas.
The V-22 would be a force enabler, allowing a RN Carrier Group to maximise the use of its assets, especially the F-35. With the slow introduction of the latter, we have tome to make sure we have the best air group we can embarked on the Carrier available at any one time. I still cannot see both carriers operationally at sea even in a peer conflict, so we need to maximise the effectiveness of the one at sea.
Alternatively, if drop tanks become available and this results in a buddy AAR system, this would go someway to meeting the same goal, but in a far les efficient manner. So I see the priority being drop tanks for the F-35 followed by the introduction of the V-22 in the latter half of this next decade. The Carrier Air Group could then comprise of;
24 F-35B Lightning II.
6-8 Merlin HM2.
6-8 V-22 Osprey.
One is allowed to dream now and then.
This and the platform entered into the US Army next generation platform programme would be a very good match for vertical lift for the FAA at some point in the future, replacing the Commando Merlins, and possible also the RAF's Pumas.
The V-22 would be a force enabler, allowing a RN Carrier Group to maximise the use of its assets, especially the F-35. With the slow introduction of the latter, we have tome to make sure we have the best air group we can embarked on the Carrier available at any one time. I still cannot see both carriers operationally at sea even in a peer conflict, so we need to maximise the effectiveness of the one at sea.
Alternatively, if drop tanks become available and this results in a buddy AAR system, this would go someway to meeting the same goal, but in a far les efficient manner. So I see the priority being drop tanks for the F-35 followed by the introduction of the V-22 in the latter half of this next decade. The Carrier Air Group could then comprise of;
24 F-35B Lightning II.
6-8 Merlin HM2.
6-8 V-22 Osprey.
One is allowed to dream now and then.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
IThe U.S.N is introducing the mq-25 for stealthy air to air refueling of aircraft like the f35 and the Hornets can the f35b be refueled from such an aircraft ? and should the feasibility or risk be considered of developing such a similar craft to operate from the Queen Elizabeth class
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Not sure what your point is. Can fast jets carry wing mounted stand off weapons and be effective in future conflicts yes they can.Timmymagic wrote:This is an argument that is sometimes used against the JSM's inability to be carried internally on the B variant. But with a range of up to 300 miles does it actually matter? You could launch far beyond the engagement envelope of enemy defences, same with a future cruise missile. Even if you were flying at a higher altitude where the enemy radar had line of sight to you at that range there aren't many or even any radars that are going to pick up the signature of a pylon. And even if they could what are they going to do?SW1 wrote:It is impossible to engineer a wing mounted solution that does not adversely affect the radar signature of the jet.
Did we spend mega bucks to keep the f35 airframe controlled to extremely tight oml tolerances and minimised excrescences to preform that particular mission in such ways no we did not.
Adding external mounted plyons weapons increases its radar signature despite what the marketing blurb may say.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Agreed, the amount of fuel you can get voyager is huge it's tens of thousands of tons of fuel. V22 and the latest unmanned tanker are still very small in comparison. I honestly don't see this as changing much at all.It can offload, what 6 tons of fuel? That's very little in any sort of operation. In the US budgets there's a near unlimited amount of money in comparison to nearly every other country.SW1 wrote:The RN is not the US navy a UK aircraft will not operate like a US navy. This obsession will make them unaffordable.
V22 “tanking” is an expensive luxury the RN cannot afford or needs. Everyone can come up with exploding penguin hypotheticals to justify anything you like.
In the world of finite budgets if buy one thing you don’t buy another. Soo what are you giving up for it? 2 type 26? The type 31 program? The POW?
The ranges you need to go beyond before voyager f35 combinations run into issues for UK operations is extremely large.
I do wonder who is going to man all this kit that we are slated for buying let alone this 'wish list' stuff. There's not a group, station or sqn that's not suffering from a lack of manpower especially SQEP. I'd be far more concerned about this issue and allocate money to sort this out before I'd be worried about wars in the Pacific or other such far flung places.
On many stations the biggest limitation on what is achievable (and what isn't) isn't too little fancy kit it's too few people, especially experienced ones. I know in some FHQs it's in the top risks to operations.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Yep If you create an environment we’re experienced staff wish to stay then all the other recruitment issues will sort themselves out because people will want to join.topman wrote:Agreed, the amount of fuel you can get voyager is huge it's tens of thousands of tons of fuel. V22 and the latest unmanned tanker are still very small in comparison. I honestly don't see this as changing much at all.It can offload, what 6 tons of fuel? That's very little in any sort of operation. In the US budgets there's a near unlimited amount of money in comparison to nearly every other country.SW1 wrote:The RN is not the US navy a UK aircraft will not operate like a US navy. This obsession will make them unaffordable.
V22 “tanking” is an expensive luxury the RN cannot afford or needs. Everyone can come up with exploding penguin hypotheticals to justify anything you like.
In the world of finite budgets if buy one thing you don’t buy another. Soo what are you giving up for it? 2 type 26? The type 31 program? The POW?
The ranges you need to go beyond before voyager f35 combinations run into issues for UK operations is extremely large.
I do wonder who is going to man all this kit that we are slated for buying let alone this 'wish list' stuff. There's not a group, station or sqn that's not suffering from a lack of manpower especially SQEP. I'd be far more concerned about this issue and allocate money to sort this out before I'd be worried about wars in the Pacific or other such far flung places.
On many stations the biggest limitation on what is achievable (and what isn't) isn't too little fancy kit it's too few people, especially experienced ones. I know in some FHQs it's in the top risks to operations.
But it’s not confined to just the services the engineering capacity in industry is also struggling with a shortage of experienced engineers with resource exhausted in a number of areas which will only make the forces ability to hold onto these people worse.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Quite. The last RAF Typhoon having been delivered, I can see the volatility in the form of (small-ish) export orders keeping the line ticking playing havoc with the more senior/ experienced staff levels, i.e. the ones that can design the next step upSW1 wrote:not confined to just the services the engineering capacity in industry is also struggling with a shortage of experienced engineers with resource exhausted in a number of areas which will only make the forces ability to hold onto these people worse.
- Tempest could be a camouflaged "TOBA"... with wings added
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Filling the senior engineering positions on tempest is proving challenging.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Tempest could be a camouflaged "TOBA"... with wings added
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5619
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
this as a statement is bollocks we now have stealth aircraft and stealth missiles these have both been designed and engineered. now if you said the cost is to great at this time that is a different thingSW1 wrote:It is impossible to engineer a wing mounted solution that does not adversely affect the radar signature of the jet.