In place of the Intruder? Careful which Navy bars you say that sort of Heresy in.
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- These users liked the author Halidon for the post (total 2):
- Ron5 • Timmymagic
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5604
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
If we stick to "how the CV airwing shall be designed", I think it is within the topic (although may not be central).wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 22:38 Are we getting bit too far away from disussion of the Aircraft Carriers themselves?
I agree. So, it is theTimmymagic wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 22:18It's perfectly doable. Rafale and SuperHornet do it all the time....it would need someone to fund it, but so far there seems to be little enthusiasm for the idea. ...Ron5 wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 15:52 I was actually suggesting that all F-35B's would be capable of buddy a2a. I believe the Buccaneers were that way. So a long distance strike on a very high value target, would be made up of multiple pairs: one aircraft loaded for attack and his buddy loaded with fuel & tanks.
In normal times the tanks & hose reels would live in a corner of the hangar.One of the main reasons for my suggestion of older F-35B, that weren't suitable for Block IV upgrades, for the job, apart from illustrating just as daft an idea as V-22 for AAR, is that the USN found that Buddy-Buddy AAR was/is having a real impact on airframe hours on its SuperHornet fleet. Hence its desire to get the MQ-25 as soon as possible. Repeated cycles of AAR duty at high all up weights was having a massive impact on aircraft availability in Carrier Air Wings out of all proportion to the number of aircraft on that duty. ...
Those old F-35B have some value as training aircraft, aggressors (although the USAF F-35A would make a lot more sense in that role), ground instructional etc.. but possibly not enough for the numbers out there. As each year goes by and more upgrades are run out to the main F-35 fleet their training utility decreases as they depart further and further from the up to date variants. You could extract some more useful value out of them as AAR.
Still a daft idea though....but has as much real world validity as buying V-22 for AAR...
- air-frame life consumption (stress from "AAR duty at high all up weights")
- high operational cost (now $40k/hour, 33% higher than FA18EF)
- and integration cost of buddy AAR systems
This shall be compared to newly developing UAV for AEW and AAR (which is planned). Surely this will cost a lot.
- If RN are going to utilize carrier-based AAR very frequently, new-UAV might pay.
- If RN's aim is to have a good option to provide "extended range" capability to F-35B fleet (not so frequently used), then introducing buddy-AAR capability to F-35B will be more effective. Actually, in many cases, land-based AAR will be used and "KF-35B" will not needed to be used.
Overall, I think introducing "F-35B buddy-AAR system" shall be seriously considered. Also, using early batches of F35B mainly for such tasks is a good approach, I agree.
Adding drop-tanks to F35B is also good, but I think it cannot completely replace the AAR capability. F35B is characterized by, not only stealth capability, but also low air-drag, because all ammo is carried internally. This means F35B can fly faster with lower fuel consumption. So, I think, regardless of "drop-tanks to F35B", AAR capability is worth considering.
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- Ron5
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Or here’s an even cheaper/better option use a voyager tanker that can actually offload usable amounts of fuel…donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑02 Jan 2023, 11:38If we stick to "how the CV airwing shall be designed", I think it is within the topic (although may not be central).wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 22:38 Are we getting bit too far away from disussion of the Aircraft Carriers themselves?
I agree. So, it is theTimmymagic wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 22:18It's perfectly doable. Rafale and SuperHornet do it all the time....it would need someone to fund it, but so far there seems to be little enthusiasm for the idea. ...Ron5 wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 15:52 I was actually suggesting that all F-35B's would be capable of buddy a2a. I believe the Buccaneers were that way. So a long distance strike on a very high value target, would be made up of multiple pairs: one aircraft loaded for attack and his buddy loaded with fuel & tanks.
In normal times the tanks & hose reels would live in a corner of the hangar.One of the main reasons for my suggestion of older F-35B, that weren't suitable for Block IV upgrades, for the job, apart from illustrating just as daft an idea as V-22 for AAR, is that the USN found that Buddy-Buddy AAR was/is having a real impact on airframe hours on its SuperHornet fleet. Hence its desire to get the MQ-25 as soon as possible. Repeated cycles of AAR duty at high all up weights was having a massive impact on aircraft availability in Carrier Air Wings out of all proportion to the number of aircraft on that duty. ...
Those old F-35B have some value as training aircraft, aggressors (although the USAF F-35A would make a lot more sense in that role), ground instructional etc.. but possibly not enough for the numbers out there. As each year goes by and more upgrades are run out to the main F-35 fleet their training utility decreases as they depart further and further from the up to date variants. You could extract some more useful value out of them as AAR.
Still a daft idea though....but has as much real world validity as buying V-22 for AAR...
- air-frame life consumption (stress from "AAR duty at high all up weights")
- high operational cost (now $40k/hour, 33% higher than FA18EF)
- and integration cost of buddy AAR systems
This shall be compared to newly developing UAV for AEW and AAR (which is planned). Surely this will cost a lot.
- If RN are going to utilize carrier-based AAR very frequently, new-UAV might pay.
- If RN's aim is to have a good option to provide "extended range" capability to F-35B fleet (not so frequently used), then introducing buddy-AAR capability to F-35B will be more effective. Actually, in many cases, land-based AAR will be used and "KF-35B" will not needed to be used.
Overall, I think introducing "F-35B buddy-AAR system" shall be seriously considered. Also, using early batches of F35B mainly for such tasks is a good approach, I agree.
Adding drop-tanks to F35B is also good, but I think it cannot completely replace the AAR capability. F35B is characterized by, not only stealth capability, but also low air-drag, because all ammo is carried internally. This means F35B can fly faster with lower fuel consumption. So, I think, regardless of "drop-tanks to F35B", AAR capability is worth considering.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5604
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Yes, as I noted. And this is why F35B buddy AAR is a better option than UAV for AAR: in many cases (not all), "several voyager tankers" can support the AAR operation, which means "dedicated" carrier-based UAV-AAR is not so many times needed. And, as voyager tankers will not be ALWAYS usable, F35B buddy AAR capability is very good.SW1 wrote: ↑02 Jan 2023, 12:54Or here’s an even cheaper/better option use a voyager tanker that can actually offload usable amounts of fuel…donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑02 Jan 2023, 11:38...
This shall be compared to newly developing UAV for AEW and AAR (which is planned). Surely this will cost a lot.
- If RN are going to utilize carrier-based AAR very frequently, new-UAV might pay.
- If RN's aim is to have a good option to provide "extended range" capability to F-35B fleet (not so frequently used), then introducing buddy-AAR capability to F-35B will be more effective. Actually, in many cases, land-based AAR will be used and "KF-35B" will not needed to be used.
Overall, I think introducing "F-35B buddy-AAR system" shall be seriously considered. Also, using early batches of F35B mainly for such tasks is a good approach, I agree. ...
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
F35 buddy refuelling is like using a Bugatti veyron to go to the corner shop for a pint of milk!donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑02 Jan 2023, 13:00Yes, as I noted. And this is why F35B buddy AAR is a better option than UAV for AAR: in many cases (not all), "several voyager tankers" can support the AAR operation, which means "dedicated" carrier-based UAV-AAR is not so many times needed. And, as voyager tankers will not be ALWAYS usable, F35B buddy AAR capability is very good.SW1 wrote: ↑02 Jan 2023, 12:54Or here’s an even cheaper/better option use a voyager tanker that can actually offload usable amounts of fuel…donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑02 Jan 2023, 11:38...
This shall be compared to newly developing UAV for AEW and AAR (which is planned). Surely this will cost a lot.
- If RN are going to utilize carrier-based AAR very frequently, new-UAV might pay.
- If RN's aim is to have a good option to provide "extended range" capability to F-35B fleet (not so frequently used), then introducing buddy-AAR capability to F-35B will be more effective. Actually, in many cases, land-based AAR will be used and "KF-35B" will not needed to be used.
Overall, I think introducing "F-35B buddy-AAR system" shall be seriously considered. Also, using early batches of F35B mainly for such tasks is a good approach, I agree. ...
If you are awash with cash and want to overcome a number of challenges go right ahead
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5604
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Why? Longer range of F35B at "ANYWHERE in the world" (even if you cannot find friendly airbase to deploy voyagers) will put large tension to your enemy's defense strategy. Worth considering. Another idea will be to "double" the number of Voyager fleet to enable "continuous operation of AAR-to AAR-Voyagers" to provide AAR spot anywhere in the world whenever you like. Anyway, AAR to CVF's F35B must be provided, I think. It is a critical enabler.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
We aren’t operating f35b anywhere in the world and at such range that voyager cannot provide AAR to it. Due to the nature of how f35b lands we do not need to provide contingency for a black deck that is the requirement for a carrier based aar capability of other.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑02 Jan 2023, 13:21Why? Longer range of F35B at "ANYWHERE in the world" (even if you cannot find friendly airbase to deploy voyagers) will put large tension to your enemy's defense strategy. Worth considering. Another idea will be to "double" the number of Voyager fleet to enable "continuous operation of AAR-to AAR-Voyagers" to provide AAR spot anywhere in the world whenever you like. Anyway, AAR to CVF's F35B must be provided, I think. It is a critical enabler.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
F-35B's can take off from the QE's at MTOW so what's the problem? Empty tanks wouldn't be an issue for landing.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Here we go. Reason #6742 why the RAF shouldn't own the F-35's.
Fly Navy, you know it makes sense.
- These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 5):
- serge750 • Scimitar54 • whitelancer • Dahedd • swoop
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Once the work was done to develop and integrate the 660 gal external tanks the addition and use of the buddy store would be pretty easy. The store already exists and flight testing of it would be straightforward. You're not having to do any high g manoeuvres or anything fancy. We already know how F-35B performs with the store as hookups have been undertaken with SuperHornet. I should add that this all only makes sense if the RN is getting the tanks and testing them on the QE Class....essentially piggy back off that.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑02 Jan 2023, 11:38 I agree. So, it is the
- air-frame life consumption (stress from "AAR duty at high all up weights")
- high operational cost (now $40k/hour, 33% higher than FA18EF)
- and integration cost of buddy AAR systems
Absolutely. And if we had enough money for V-22 AAR or KF-35B we'd be better off all round activating some of the 6 'Surge' Airtanker fleet permanently to the AAR fleet. Cheaper, more effective and with a greater impact on UK and Allied forces.
Getting back to the QE thread....donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑02 Jan 2023, 11:38 This shall be compared to newly developing UAV for AEW and AAR (which is planned). Surely this will cost a lot.
- If RN are going to utilize carrier-based AAR very frequently, new-UAV might pay.
The RFI the RN put out for the electromagnetic launch system is very much a scoping exercise. But I don't think will ever happen, at least not for AAR. If General Atomics could get the carrier borne MQ-9B with large STOL folding wings built then future AEW using that platform, without electromagnetic launch, is very doable and I'd say even desirable. But getting any platform that can achieve a reasonable speed and range whilst lifting a worthwhile load of fuel for AAR off the deck would need EMALS or a resurrected EMCAT system. That would be serious, serious money that we're just not going to have or spend. The below slides are from a Converteam presentation that Think Defence archived from 2007. They show the difference between the capabilities of EMKIT, EMKIT+ and the (never built) EMCAT (the UK developed EMALS competitor). You could possibly fit EMKIT or EMKIT+ for a reasonable price and time in the dockyard. But EMKIT would be a whole other proposition, with the costs to go along with it...
FYI - Global Hawk is a weird entry but is there for illustration purposes (some of the other UAV's listed are very much of the time as well e.g. Gnat 750). It might be massive, but it is also surprisingly light (15,000lb's empty, 32,000lbs full load). Can't lift a decent load though...for comparison MQ-25 is 14,000lbs empty with max take off of 44,500lbs carrying over 15,000lbs of fuel. And that definitely needs arrestor gear...basically a full CATOBAR conversion at the cost of £billions...
But...there was a Global Hawk based AAR platform...a test programme was actually run...no idea how much fuel it could carry, and no fuel transfer was ever undertaken...but they did wake testing at high altitude using the Scaled Composites Proteus. Not sure how it would handle a ramp though...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KQ-X
You can clearly see the huge difference between the comparatively simple EMKIT and EMKIT+ to the altogether far more power EMCAT in terms of the weights it can handle and energy it can impart.
Hermes 450 = Watchkeeper
Predator B = Reaper
Pay attention to the KJ scale on the left as well....its not linear...
- These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
- donald_of_tokyo
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Black Buck is alive and wellTimmymagic wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:38 Absolutely. And if we had enough money for V-22 AAR or KF-35B we'd be better off all round activating some of the 6 'Surge' Airtanker fleet permanently to the AAR fleet. Cheaper, more effective and with a greater impact on UK and Allied forces.
- These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 2):
- Scimitar54 • PhillyJ
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Mmmmm. Checkout Crowsnest when you have a second or two. Then have a think on how you'll solve the download bandwidth problem. Then have a think how you'll conduct flight deck ops with an MQ-9 or three.Timmymagic wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:38 If General Atomics could get the carrier borne MQ-9B with large STOL folding wings built then future AEW using that platform, without electromagnetic launch, is very doable and I'd say even desirable.
Color me extremely dubious.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
What bandwidth problem?Ron5 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:53Mmmmm. Checkout Crowsnest when you have a second or two. Then have a think on how you'll solve the download bandwidth problem. Then have a think how you'll conduct flight deck ops with an MQ-9 or three.Timmymagic wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:38 If General Atomics could get the carrier borne MQ-9B with large STOL folding wings built then future AEW using that platform, without electromagnetic launch, is very doable and I'd say even desirable.
Color me extremely dubious.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Keeping OTH raw radar data safe from jamming. Pre-processing the returns in the UAV (to reduce bandwidth) would not be reliable enough with today's technology. Of course if you did solve it, a UK CEC would be a doddle.tomuk wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 23:46What bandwidth problem?Ron5 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:53Mmmmm. Checkout Crowsnest when you have a second or two. Then have a think on how you'll solve the download bandwidth problem. Then have a think how you'll conduct flight deck ops with an MQ-9 or three.Timmymagic wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:38 If General Atomics could get the carrier borne MQ-9B with large STOL folding wings built then future AEW using that platform, without electromagnetic launch, is very doable and I'd say even desirable.
Color me extremely dubious.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Would the UAV 'Crowsnest' be operating OTH? If orbiting at 25,000ft the radar horizon would be nearly 400km. You would have coverage out to 800km from the carrier and still have line of sight for a MADL style link from the UAV, not forgetting the satcom and trad radio links also available.Ron5 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 14:03Keeping OTH raw radar data safe from jamming. Pre-processing the returns in the UAV (to reduce bandwidth) would not be reliable enough with today's technology. Of course if you did solve it, a UK CEC would be a doddle.tomuk wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 23:46What bandwidth problem?Ron5 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:53Mmmmm. Checkout Crowsnest when you have a second or two. Then have a think on how you'll solve the download bandwidth problem. Then have a think how you'll conduct flight deck ops with an MQ-9 or three.Timmymagic wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:38 If General Atomics could get the carrier borne MQ-9B with large STOL folding wings built then future AEW using that platform, without electromagnetic launch, is very doable and I'd say even desirable.
Color me extremely dubious.
Also these days with the amount of processing power both conventional and 'AI' available in low power COTS processors I wouldn't be so dismissive of pre-processing.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Laser links and LEO satellite could also be options.tomuk wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 21:47 Would the UAV 'Crowsnest' be operating OTH? If orbiting at 25,000ft the radar horizon would be nearly 400km. You would have coverage out to 800km from the carrier and still have line of sight for a MADL style link from the UAV, not forgetting the satcom and trad radio links also available.
Also these days with the amount of processing power both conventional and 'AI' available in low power COTS processors I wouldn't be so dismissive of pre-processing.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
If UAV AEW was so "doable", I wonder why the RAF and USAF are spending so much on renewing their manned AEW.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5604
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I understand E-7 is AWACS like assets, powerful radar, very good analysis power, high resolution and long-range.
CROWSNEST is much more an AEW radar, extending the radar horizon is the main task. High-altitude targets can be monitored by T45 and CV itself. And thus CROWSNEST's main task is to cover low-level flying objects?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I didn't realise E2 Hawkeyes and SeaKing\Merlin baggers were used in such a way. I assume they operate within an air superiority bubble.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
We are talking about carrier based AEW not land based.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Check out how both aircraft were used in Iraq.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
So no advantage to go unmanned for them?
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
For some elements of their mission that required persistence yes. See work going into satellite based radar surveillance and pseudo satellite HAPS and Zephyr.
But you can't fly an E7 or E3 of a carrier.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I'd guess a helicopter based system will replace Crowsnest. Maybe unmanned. Probably a derivative of the Merlin ASW replacement. But a couple of decades away at the earliest.