Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[seaspear]

The U.S.N is believed to have considered the Osprey as a fuel tanker for inbound flights awaiting deck clearance ,the Osprey having the capacity of 12000 litres , a f35b if equipped with a refuelling tank may be able to do similar role

[ArmChairCivvy]

Osprey as a fuel tanker for inbound flights awaiting deck clearance

Now we are starting to see the beauty of hovering in, over the side for a vtol landing, while helo ops can continue?
- bring-back of weapons is a different story, but not the main rule

[seaspear]

The I.A..F is reported to be developing conformal tanks for their f35,s if those could be developed without adding to rcs that would be interesting

[Pymes75]

Not particularly, carrier a/c are well used to and plentiful visitors to tankers. There's nothing special in them using tankers it's been happening frequently for a long time and will no doubt continue for many years to come.

Buddy buddy systems add very little to range, simply not large enough to off load enough fuel. Useful in narrow specific circumstances but that's it.

Indeed. I've said before, the USN's primary role for organic tanking is during recovery operations when they have one or more 'Bolters' that will need to "Trick or treat". The ability for Dave Bs to land vertically in higher sea states (vs arrested landings) should largely mitigate against this requirement on the QECs.

There's an impressive clip in one of the PBS "Carrier" episodes when the skipper of VFA-41 opts to take the tasking to tank a bunch of Hornets that are struggling to land during a high sea-state recovery. The key issue facing him is that he will be the last FJ to land and therefore he'd be under pressure to trap first time in deteriorating conditions! Water melons...

[RetroSicotte]

With regards to the "RAF getting the first..."

The planes will have to land on the carrier first before they can take off from it, after all.

[SKB]

Unless they're rolled aboard, or craned aboard....

[Ron5]

The ability for Dave Bs to land vertically in higher sea states (vs arrested landings) should largely mitigate against this requirement on the QECs.

If by "mitigate" you mean "eliminate", then yes.

To my personal surprise, the USMC also believe the V-22 allows for combat tanking, extending the F-35B range/endurance. I wouldn't have thought they carried enough fuel to make a credible difference.

[Little J]

Would imagine that the rcs of an osprey would be massive... How close do you have to be to the enemy to qualify as "combat tanking"?

[topman]

With regards to the "RAF getting the first..."

The planes will have to land on the carrier first before they can take off from it, after all.

That's the whole point!

It's almost like someone has thought of all this.

[andrew98]

RN(FAA) lands, then RAF lands.
Then...
RAF takes off, then RN(FAA) takes off, simples.

Should be RN(FAA) both first though!

[seaspear]

Are there any thoughts of what the proposed MQ-25 could add being launched of the carriers ,the aim of this type of craft is to carry 6,800 kg of fuel ,it does have a low rcs it is also believed this could add this could add five hundred miles to the combat radius of the S.H , a question though would be if it can be launched off the ramp.

[downsizer]

The internet worries about measuring dicks and who does what first. Meanwhile both services work hard to deliver a cutting edge capability

[Ron5]

We'll see how that works out when it's time for the RAF squadrons to go to sea. The previous Harrier experiment is not a good precedent.

[downsizer]

Can't say I've met anyone involved who has a problem with that.

[CameronPerson]

Can't say I've met anyone involved who has a problem with that.

As Downsizer says, you’re unlikely to hear any personnel involved in JFH speak ill of it. At the end of the day they all worked hard alongside one another aiming for the same goal, they were a team. JFH was however a successive headache for top brass, most notably Jock Stirrup (the fighter pilot CDS who didn’t get on very well with the Army and who was accused in the Chilcott Report of “ignoring problems” in Iraq) and Mark Stanhope in 2010 with the SDSR.

I think it’s clear to see that JFH had serious repercussions for the RN. I’m not talking about just the operational differences usually cited in interservice rivalries such as tour lengths and when they deployed etc; but factors such as that the FAA lost the FA2, an aircraft that provided airborne fleet protection and was then replaced by a mud mover with no real AA capability apart from two AIM-9s. Yes, the Type 45s were coming but their limited number didn’t eliminate the need for a plane like the Sea Harrier. People usually cite the loss of the Ark in 2010 as the point at which Britain lost its carrier capability, but really this process had been happening since 2006 (maybe even earlier, JF2000?). JFH was damaging in as much that the Harrier Force was run ragged in Afghanistan, leaving little or no sea time. At the time of Ark’s withdrawal the amount of RAF pilots fully qualified for carrier ops was severely lacking. Plus the engine upgrade for the GR7 turned out to be more expensive than the price originally quoted for the FA2 so there was a feeling of “why did the hell did you do that” pretty early.

I’d like to think that these lessons will have been learnt so that Joint Force Lightning can flourish for BOTH services in a way that JFH never did. In the case of the RN I think it helps that they’ve got a £6billion investment that many in Whitehall will be unwilling to see with no aircraft on their decks. But then again, given the slow procurement of the F-35 there seems to be a real push to try and put across that the QE class don’t always need to operate with Lightnings and they can do this and that.. Sometimes it does look like they’re prepping for the occasion where they need to defend a lack of aircraft availability. Still we shall wait and see, no doubt the professionalism of both services in JFH will be matched by JFL.

[Lord Jim]

It would make a statement if after 617, the next wo operational; squadrons were FAA in number at least with the OCU being the next RAF numbered squadron. Won't happen though.

[Ron5]

I’d like to think that these lessons will have been learnt

I know I'm flogging a dead horse but these lessons have been ongoing since 1918, reinforced every decade or so. At some point, any and every pragmatic observer would conclude the problems are generic and can only be fixed by having the Navy own naval aircraft.

Buy enough F-35B's to fill both carriers simultaneous in an emergency and to allow one carrier to be filled on a continuous basis. Give them all to the Navy. If there's any F-35 money left over, give to the RAF to buy whatever they want: newer Typhoons, F-35A's, whatever. Simples.

[CameronPerson]

I’d like to think that these lessons will have been learnt

I know I'm flogging a dead horse but these lessons have been ongoing since 1918, reinforced every decade or so. At some point, any and every pragmatic observer would conclude the problems are generic and can only be fixed by having the Navy own naval aircraft.

Exactly, Naval Aviation cannot be a part time occupation, it’s bloody difficult. Every other nation operating jets from carriers know and understand this but yet the UK seem to keep forgetting it despite their own experiences that strengthen the FAA’s case. Although I don’t doubt the professionalism of the RAF pilots, judging by past performance the occasional detachment of RAF assets aboard a carrier is no replacement for the Fleet Air Arm operating their own jets. Plus judging by the rumours of the RAF wanting a split buy after the first 48 Daves would imply they see carrier aviation as an inconvenience rather than an asset

[indeid]

But then again we’re the only country whose Chinook force isn’t operated by the Army as well as our MPAs (past and future) not being flown by the navy; again a concept that everyone else seems to grasp.

Might need to put a bit more research in to that statement.

[CameronPerson]

Might need to put a bit more research in to that statement.

Quite right, apologies I’ll retract it

[CameronPerson]

[CameronPerson]

I didn’t know that the the current Commander Air or QE was the last pilot to launch a Harrier from the Ark back in 2010.. nice little full circle with Jerry Kydd as Captain too

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6826

[CameronPerson]

Who knows, since QE is still in Portsmouth we may even get a fly past? Although I saw a picture of her yesterday and all the tents and scaffolding on the flight deck have gone now so it won’t be long before she sets sail to embark her own jets

[SKB]

If QE sails with the next Portsmouth Harbour spring tide, it'll be the weekend of Friday 15th until Sunday 17th June.

[CameronPerson]