Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

sol wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 09:58
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 09:07 As much as i would like to see V-280 for the Navy do we really think we will would see it or its drone as HMG would be pushing a home grown option
Well, even tho OSD of Merlin is pushed to 2040, sooner or later FAA will need to think about its replacement and aircrafts like V-22 or V-280 could be a viable option for that, and its drone version could also be considered. I don't see UK replacing Merlin with domestically build solution, at least not now. But who knows.
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 09:07 Plus if Predator B can be made STOL with a wing kit then a buy of an extra 15 on top of the 20 hoped for in the RAF to make a joint RN-RAF force with say 35 Predators and 4 front line squadrons 2 of each would not be a bad out come
I was commenting on the post that QE could need structural changes to be able to operate drones, or to be more precise, to enable their safe landing. So I was pointing of other possible solution which could be less costly than rebuilding the ship itself, like titltrotor drones. Of course if navy version of Protector could be safely operated from QE than it would be a logical choice considering that RAF is already using it.
If the V-280 is to be looked at for a replacement for Merlin and I would say the Pumas as well, then surely instead of design a new STOL version of the Protector along with making the changes that would be needed to the QEs, wouldn’t it be better for the RN to purchase the V-247 ( the drone version of V-280 ) the attack variant is already a Protector style drone and you have the other options of AEW, Electronic Warfare and the being looked at AAR.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The STOL version of mq9 started development in 2017 concept flown on a smaller scale since then, ground support infrastructure, training already all in place. Nothing similar can be said for the v247.

‘Modifying” the carrier is purely speculative at this stage as is the purchase it has to be said.

Going tilt rotor for future rotorcraft will mean a reduction in numbers of at least 25% based on cost alone maybe more or a much bigger budget than now for both procurement and training.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Timmymagic

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 »

SW1 wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 12:14 Going tilt rotor for future rotorcraft will mean a reduction in numbers of at least 25% based on cost alone maybe more or a much bigger budget than now for both procurement and training.
Exactly. Doing the same with less number of assets, is the outcome of tiltrotor solution.

It has its own merit. High speed and long range.

This is very good for air-refuel (to F-35B) and assault tasks, but not sure for ASW. AEW is also not clear, because endurance and high “flying time ratio” are needed. Tiltroter crafts are far from simple mechanics, and thus maintenance load will be large.

Not sure, but MQ-9 STOVL like solution with a bit compact AESA might be better. Weight and power may not allow 4-set to cover 360 degree at once, but it can turn. If higher refresh rate be needed, you can fly the second MQ-9STOL AEW to cover the other side…

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 15:24
SW1 wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 12:14 Going tilt rotor for future rotorcraft will mean a reduction in numbers of at least 25% based on cost alone maybe more or a much bigger budget than now for both procurement and training.
Exactly. Doing the same with less number of assets, is the outcome of tiltrotor solution.

It has its own merit. High speed and long range.

This is very good for air-refuel (to F-35B) and assault tasks, but not sure for ASW. AEW is also not clear, because endurance and high “flying time ratio” are needed. Tiltroter crafts are far from simple mechanics, and thus maintenance load will be large.

Not sure, but MQ-9 STOVL like solution with a bit compact AESA might be better. Weight and power may not allow 4-set to cover 360 degree at once, but it can turn. If higher refresh rate be needed, you can fly the second MQ-9STOL AEW to cover the other side…
I doubt they'd be much use for aar, this sort of aircraft carry very little useful fuel.
These users liked the author topman for the post:
SW1

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

PhillyJ wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 09:07
topman wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 07:05
PhillyJ wrote: 27 Dec 2022, 22:04
topman wrote: 26 Dec 2022, 09:18
PhillyJ wrote: 24 Dec 2022, 12:40 Just a fun KHM post, not seen this before, though I'm sure they've posted it many times. I can confirm nipper had moved from Rosyth to Aldershot to Gatwick. Merry Christmas to you all, I think next year will be his last few months on PWLS, hopefully he'll stay in the RN but his current mood, sadly, suggests not.
Screenshot_20221224-123505.png
How come he's not enjoying it?
sadly due to the various issues PWLS has had in the time he has been on board, coupled with catching up with shipmates from his phase 1 & 2 training and hearing where they have been on their ships.
I think most serving have been there at some point.
I don't follow the navy way of posting people about, is he due a posting soon?
I think it's every 2 years that you can get moved on, not entirely sure.
I get it's frustrating and you think the decent posting will never happen, especially when you've just joined and see everyone else, seemingly, getting good dets.

I'm not sure how the navy works when ships are in the uk long term, its bound to be different from us.

Get him to look at adventure training if he can. Nothing like a bit of free skiing.

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 »

topman wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 19:25
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 15:24
SW1 wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 12:14 Going tilt rotor for future rotorcraft will mean a reduction in numbers of at least 25% based on cost alone maybe more or a much bigger budget than now for both procurement and training.
Exactly. Doing the same with less number of assets, is the outcome of tiltrotor solution.

It has its own merit. High speed and long range.

This is very good for air-refuel (to F-35B) and assault tasks, but not sure for ASW. AEW is also not clear, because endurance and high “flying time ratio” are needed. Tiltroter crafts are far from simple mechanics, and thus maintenance load will be large.

Not sure, but MQ-9 STOVL like solution with a bit compact AESA might be better. Weight and power may not allow 4-set to cover 360 degree at once, but it can turn. If higher refresh rate be needed, you can fly the second MQ-9STOL AEW to cover the other side…
I doubt they'd be much use for aar, this sort of aircraft carry very little useful fuel.
True. But, that is the most we can expect.

- V-22 is 15t dry and 25t in max-take off weight (+10t of loads and fuel), and its AAR kit can provide ~4.5t of fuel at 200nm distance.
- MQ-25A is 6.4t dry and 20.2t n max-take off weight (+13.8t of loads and fuel), and can deliver 7.2t of fuel at 500 nm distance.
- V-280 is 8t dry and 14t in max-takeoff weight (+6t of loads and fuel, 60% of V-22), so its AAR capability, if developed, will be 2.7t at 200nm distance.

F-35B's internal fuel is 6.1t, which is 2.8t less than F-35C's and 2.1t less than F-35A's. So, a V-22 AAR can give 2 F35B with F-35 level of range (670 nm, wiki). If the AAR-plane also refuel in the coming-back flight, the range will be longer.

Carrier based air power's "AAR" is that level. And this level makes big difference, because it is the maximum range your enemy "fears". Not bad, I think. The problem is, if it is V-280 derivative (not V-22), the fuel amount is not so large. And the bigger problem is, there is no practical plan to operate any UAVs heavier than MQ-25A onboard RN CVs, to my understanding.

In short, yes "this sort of aircraft carry very little useful fuel", but that is what an AAR on CV airwing does. (this is one of the reasons why land-based AAR airplanes are usually used there).
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 3):
Timmymagicwargame_insomniacmrclark303

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by topman »

Exactly, it's a negligible amount of fuel in an operation. VFM wise its a very poor choice, money for that would be far better spent on things like training, housing etc.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 08:29
topman wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 19:25
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 15:24
SW1 wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 12:14 Going tilt rotor for future rotorcraft will mean a reduction in numbers of at least 25% based on cost alone maybe more or a much bigger budget than now for both procurement and training.
Exactly. Doing the same with less number of assets, is the outcome of tiltrotor solution.

It has its own merit. High speed and long range.

This is very good for air-refuel (to F-35B) and assault tasks, but not sure for ASW. AEW is also not clear, because endurance and high “flying time ratio” are needed. Tiltroter crafts are far from simple mechanics, and thus maintenance load will be large.

Not sure, but MQ-9 STOVL like solution with a bit compact AESA might be better. Weight and power may not allow 4-set to cover 360 degree at once, but it can turn. If higher refresh rate be needed, you can fly the second MQ-9STOL AEW to cover the other side…
I doubt they'd be much use for aar, this sort of aircraft carry very little useful fuel.
True. But, that is the most we can expect.

- V-22 is 15t dry and 25t in max-take off weight (+10t of loads and fuel), and its AAR kit can provide ~4.5t of fuel at 200nm distance.
- MQ-25A is 6.4t dry and 20.2t n max-take off weight (+13.8t of loads and fuel), and can deliver 7.2t of fuel at 500 nm distance.
- V-280 is 8t dry and 14t in max-takeoff weight (+6t of loads and fuel, 60% of V-22), so its AAR capability, if developed, will be 2.7t at 200nm distance.

F-35B's internal fuel is 6.1t, which is 2.8t less than F-35C's and 2.1t less than F-35A's. So, a V-22 AAR can give 2 F35B with F-35 level of range (670 nm, wiki). If the AAR-plane also refuel in the coming-back flight, the range will be longer.

Carrier based air power's "AAR" is that level. And this level makes big difference, because it is the maximum range your enemy "fears". Not bad, I think. The problem is, if it is V-280 derivative (not V-22), the fuel amount is not so large. And the bigger problem is, there is no practical plan to operate any UAVs heavier than MQ-25A onboard RN CVs, to my understanding.

In short, yes "this sort of aircraft carry very little useful fuel", but that is what an AAR on CV airwing does. (this is one of the reasons why land-based AAR airplanes are usually used there).
F-35B drop tanks.

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 »

Ron5 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:49F-35B drop tanks.
By largely losing stealth. But, yes I agree drop tanks on F-35B must be a very good option. For the enemy, the threat from longer range is not negligible.

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: 29 Dec 2022, 08:29 In short, yes "this sort of aircraft carry very little useful fuel", but that is what an AAR on CV airwing does. (this is one of the reasons why land-based AAR airplanes are usually used there).
Its worth remembering that in the early days of the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 the USN were almost wholly reliant on RAF AAR to get them into Afghanistan from the CVN in the northern Arabian Sea.
Ron5 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:49 - V-22 is 15t dry and 25t in max-take off weight (+10t of loads and fuel), and its AAR kit can provide ~4.5t of fuel at 200nm distance.
- MQ-25A is 6.4t dry and 20.2t n max-take off weight (+13.8t of loads and fuel), and can deliver 7.2t of fuel at 500 nm distance.
- V-280 is 8t dry and 14t in max-takeoff weight (+6t of loads and fuel, 60% of V-22), so its AAR capability, if developed, will be 2.7t at 200nm distance.
To make it even worse for V-22 and V-280....they can't lug that fuel up to a decent altitude or decent speed...any F-35 trying to fuel from them would also burn up a lot of fuel descending to their altitude, then climbing back up, and trying to maintain speed with them, and thats without the additional risk of being close to stalling...this issue also happened the other way around with A-10 over Afghanistan. The hot high conditions meant that A-10 had to spend an age climbing up to the altitude that KC-135 and KC-10 operated at and was running at full power to do so....burning yet more fuel. Which reduced their time on station even further. Even then it was marginal if the A-10 could actually make the hook up...
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
mrclark303

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 15:57
Ron5 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:49F-35B drop tanks.
By largely losing stealth. But, yes I agree drop tanks on F-35B must be a very good option. For the enemy, the threat from longer range is not negligible.
Largely losing stealth??

No, not at all. They will be designed to minimize their additional RCS as well as, errrr ... being droppable :lol:

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 17:49 Its worth remembering that in the early days of the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 the USN were almost wholly reliant on RAF AAR to get them into Afghanistan from the CVN in the northern Arabian Sea.
Hence the USN adoption of the longer ranged F-35C and the development of the MQ-25.

I'm pretty sure the AAR V-22 died some time ago. IIRC, it was a USMC program for the gator navy not for the CVN's.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 14:44 Largely losing stealth??

No, not at all. They will be designed to minimize their additional RCS as well as, errrr ... being droppable
To be fair External Tanks are rarely dropped these days except in extremis. And even then the paperwork when you get back is going to be painful...
Ron5 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 14:48 I'm pretty sure the AAR V-22 died some time ago. IIRC, it was a USMC program for the gator navy not for the CVN's.
Haven't seen anything on it for an age. Suspect it was one of those ideas that got trialled to see if it could be done, then file away the details just in case it was ever needed, but there was never a real intention to procure. I just wish the idea that the RN would ever be interested would die...the cost alone for it would be ruinous....financially it would actually make more sense to buy 2 or 3 of the older F-35B that the USMC eventually decide to not upgrade to Block IV because of cost, or a couple of our older ones in a similar boat, and stick a couple of tanks and buddy fueling gear on them, and use them as a dedicated asset. You could get 9,000lbs in external tanks and the Cobham pod. And thats almost as much as a V-22. If you could add two internally carried pods you could add another 2,000lbs.

That would work out far cheaper than a small fleet of V-22....could tank at speed and altitude further out as well....plus be more survivable

And it still wouldn't be worth doing...

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 21:01
Ron5 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 14:44 Largely losing stealth??

No, not at all. They will be designed to minimize their additional RCS as well as, errrr ... being droppable
To be fair External Tanks are rarely dropped these days except in extremis. And even then the paperwork when you get back is going to be painful...
Ron5 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 14:48 I'm pretty sure the AAR V-22 died some time ago. IIRC, it was a USMC program for the gator navy not for the CVN's.
Haven't seen anything on it for an age. Suspect it was one of those ideas that got trialled to see if it could be done, then file away the details just in case it was ever needed, but there was never a real intention to procure. I just wish the idea that the RN would ever be interested would die...the cost alone for it would be ruinous....financially it would actually make more sense to buy 2 or 3 of the older F-35B that the USMC eventually decide to not upgrade to Block IV because of cost, or a couple of our older ones in a similar boat, and stick a couple of tanks and buddy fueling gear on them, and use them as a dedicated asset. You could get 9,000lbs in external tanks and the Cobham pod. And thats almost as much as a V-22. If you could add two internally carried pods you could add another 2,000lbs.

That would work out far cheaper than a small fleet of V-22....could tank at speed and altitude further out as well....plus be more survivable

And it still wouldn't be worth doing...
A tanker F-35B like the old Buccaneer. I wonder how much fuel it could carry to be offloaded given very large drop tanks with hose reels. Enough to be viable?

PS not dropping tanks is a peacetime issue. Budgets go out the window when bullets begin to fly :D
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
PhillyJ

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 »

F35B blk 2 or 3 based AAR tanker. Interesting.

But the point is, F35's operating cost is very high, and it needs long maintenance hour after its flight.

To make maintenance load small,
- accept reduced stealth by pealing-off the stealth coating.
- accept outdated FCS system (keep it blk3)
- secondary roles as (not-so-mush stealth) air-defence fighter?

With 4drop tanks, may be it can carry as much as fuel as F18E/F does.

The problem is, even with these mitigation, its operation cost might not be so cheap. Operating 3 of these "monkey AAR" models in place of 2 full-fat F35B blk4 is good or bad?

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

Ron5 wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 14:59
Timmymagic wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 21:01
Ron5 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 14:44 Largely losing stealth??

No, not at all. They will be designed to minimize their additional RCS as well as, errrr ... being droppable
To be fair External Tanks are rarely dropped these days except in extremis. And even then the paperwork when you get back is going to be painful...
Ron5 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 14:48 I'm pretty sure the AAR V-22 died some time ago. IIRC, it was a USMC program for the gator navy not for the CVN's.
Haven't seen anything on it for an age. Suspect it was one of those ideas that got trialled to see if it could be done, then file away the details just in case it was ever needed, but there was never a real intention to procure. I just wish the idea that the RN would ever be interested would die...the cost alone for it would be ruinous....financially it would actually make more sense to buy 2 or 3 of the older F-35B that the USMC eventually decide to not upgrade to Block IV because of cost, or a couple of our older ones in a similar boat, and stick a couple of tanks and buddy fueling gear on them, and use them as a dedicated asset. You could get 9,000lbs in external tanks and the Cobham pod. And thats almost as much as a V-22. If you could add two internally carried pods you could add another 2,000lbs.

That would work out far cheaper than a small fleet of V-22....could tank at speed and altitude further out as well....plus be more survivable

And it still wouldn't be worth doing...
A tanker F-35B like the old Buccaneer. I wonder how much fuel it could carry to be offloaded given very large drop tanks with hose reels. Enough to be viable?

PS not dropping tanks is a peacetime issue. Budgets go out the window when bullets begin to fly :D
Buccaneer, what an aircraft. My favourite from the early days of airshows when they could fly at grass height! Read the book Phoenix Squadron for their last hurrah from a cats'n'traps carrier. Happy New Year to you all by the way.
These users liked the author PhillyJ for the post (total 2):
Ron5Timmymagic

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by bobp »

Yes the Buccaneer was a great aircraft especially the later versions.
These users liked the author bobp for the post (total 3):
PhillyJRon5Scimitar54

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 14:59 A tanker F-35B like the old Buccaneer. I wonder how much fuel it could carry to be offloaded given very large drop tanks with hose reels. Enough to be viable?
Depends how many tanks you could get cleared. The inner wing pylons will get 660 gallon externals. They'll weight 4,500lbs when full, with 4,000lbs of fuel (the rest is the weight of the tank and plumbing). The mid wing pylons are rated for 1,500lbs on F-35B. One of those would be needed for the Cobham Buddy Store as used on SuperHornet and MQ-25. That weighs 800lbs so will be good to go on the mid wing pylon. You'd probably want to balance it out on the other wing with another c1,000lb store. A small external tank there weighing 1,000lbs would be useful just for balance issues to avoid a totally asymmetric load.

But....the internal bays would probably have to remain empty. They're not plumbed for fuel at present so the possibility of 2,000lbs of fuel in there (in some non-aerodynamic tank like the currently tested internal baggage pods) would likely go to waste. It could probably be done...but the aircraft would then be totally dedicated to the AAR mission and the testing required would increase by an order of magnitude.

So you could be looking at 8-9,000lbs of fuel in addition to the 12,000lbs internal fuel. How much you could offload would depend on how far away you were tanking.

An interesting question is if you could use the Terma Multi Mission pod that is used to house the B and C variants GAU-12 gun for either fuel or the buddy store...I suspect that that station is not plumbed though...the weight would work though...could allow an additional 1,000lb tank on the mid wing station.


The big question is if that amount is worthwhile at all...you can top off a CAP's fuel tanks and keep them on station, and thats a good thing. But with 2-3 AAR platforms you're not going to be extending the range of a strike all that dramatically, or for too many aircraft. You'd probably be better off investing in longer ranged munitions to get that range. The big reason for buddy fueling on CATOBAR carriers (fouled deck and Bolters) just isn't present on STOVL carriers.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 15:47 F35B blk 2 or 3 based AAR tanker. Interesting.

But the point is, F35's operating cost is very high, and it needs long maintenance hour after its flight.
F-35's cost per flight hour should be down to 25-30k USD by 2025. V-22 has been reported as being 11k USD recently, but the figure is a little opaque on what it contains. It was 83k USD at one point...V-22 is probably more rugged and by all accounts is reliable these days, but it would still be marginal as a tanker in terms of performance even with low per flight hour costs.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 15:47 To make maintenance load small,
- accept reduced stealth by pealing-off the stealth coating.
- accept outdated FCS system (keep it blk3)
- secondary roles as (not-so-mush stealth) air-defence fighter?
I don't think you'd want to deviate from maintenance on the coatings regardless of stealth. Essentially you'd be flying an untested aircraft at that point. But operating a Block 2 or 3F aircraft purely for AAR (or indeed for Aggressor work) would make more sense that using a full fat Block IV a/c. The USMC might even part with some of the older ones on the cheap...they've got at least 40 a/c in the really expensive upgrade category with a minimum of $30m cost to upgrade. Block 2 or 3F would still have Asraam and Amraam capability so would be perfectly acceptable as a CAP platform.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 15:47 The problem is, even with these mitigation, its operation cost might not be so cheap. Operating 3 of these "monkey AAR" models in place of 2 full-fat F35B blk4 is good or bad?
Think you'd get 3 of the older F-35B for the cost of 1 new one.

I'm not saying its a good idea at all, but it makes a lot more financial and operational sense than the perennial question of if we should buy V-22 for AAR or COD...and thats saying something...

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 15:14
Ron5 wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 14:59 A tanker F-35B like the old Buccaneer. I wonder how much fuel it could carry to be offloaded given very large drop tanks with hose reels. Enough to be viable?
Depends how many tanks you could get cleared. The inner wing pylons will get 660 gallon externals. They'll weight 4,500lbs when full, with 4,000lbs of fuel (the rest is the weight of the tank and plumbing). The mid wing pylons are rated for 1,500lbs on F-35B. One of those would be needed for the Cobham Buddy Store as used on SuperHornet and MQ-25. That weighs 800lbs so will be good to go on the mid wing pylon. You'd probably want to balance it out on the other wing with another c1,000lb store. A small external tank there weighing 1,000lbs would be useful just for balance issues to avoid a totally asymmetric load.

But....the internal bays would probably have to remain empty. They're not plumbed for fuel at present so the possibility of 2,000lbs of fuel in there (in some non-aerodynamic tank like the currently tested internal baggage pods) would likely go to waste. It could probably be done...but the aircraft would then be totally dedicated to the AAR mission and the testing required would increase by an order of magnitude.

So you could be looking at 8-9,000lbs of fuel in addition to the 12,000lbs internal fuel. How much you could offload would depend on how far away you were tanking.

An interesting question is if you could use the Terma Multi Mission pod that is used to house the B and C variants GAU-12 gun for either fuel or the buddy store...I suspect that that station is not plumbed though...the weight would work though...could allow an additional 1,000lb tank on the mid wing station.


The big question is if that amount is worthwhile at all...you can top off a CAP's fuel tanks and keep them on station, and thats a good thing. But with 2-3 AAR platforms you're not going to be extending the range of a strike all that dramatically, or for too many aircraft. You'd probably be better off investing in longer ranged munitions to get that range. The big reason for buddy fueling on CATOBAR carriers (fouled deck and Bolters) just isn't present on STOVL carriers.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 15:47 F35B blk 2 or 3 based AAR tanker. Interesting.

But the point is, F35's operating cost is very high, and it needs long maintenance hour after its flight.
F-35's cost per flight hour should be down to 25-30k USD by 2025. V-22 has been reported as being 11k USD recently, but the figure is a little opaque on what it contains. It was 83k USD at one point...V-22 is probably more rugged and by all accounts is reliable these days, but it would still be marginal as a tanker in terms of performance even with low per flight hour costs.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 15:47 To make maintenance load small,
- accept reduced stealth by pealing-off the stealth coating.
- accept outdated FCS system (keep it blk3)
- secondary roles as (not-so-mush stealth) air-defence fighter?
I don't think you'd want to deviate from maintenance on the coatings regardless of stealth. Essentially you'd be flying an untested aircraft at that point. But operating a Block 2 or 3F aircraft purely for AAR (or indeed for Aggressor work) would make more sense that using a full fat Block IV a/c. The USMC might even part with some of the older ones on the cheap...they've got at least 40 a/c in the really expensive upgrade category with a minimum of $30m cost to upgrade. Block 2 or 3F would still have Asraam and Meteor capability so would be perfectly acceptable as a CAP platform.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 15:47 The problem is, even with these mitigation, its operation cost might not be so cheap. Operating 3 of these "monkey AAR" models in place of 2 full-fat F35B blk4 is good or bad?
Think you'd get 3 of the older F-35B for the cost of 1 new one.

I'm not saying its a good idea at all, but it makes a lot more financial and operational sense than the perennial question of if we should buy V-22 for AAR or COD...and thats saying something...
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.

A special KF-35B makes little sense to me.

Of course adding regular drop tanks would probably provide 80% of the benefit at 5% of the cost.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Buccaneer was an all time classic. The USN should have bought them.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 3):
serge750PhillyJScimitar54

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

There’s a way to spend a shed load of cash for a marginal benefit….

Would be interesting to see them getting on and off the deck with all the additional equipment and fuel needed too. Not to mention the engineering cost to put it all in.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by bobp »

The range and weapon carrying capacity of the F35B far exceeds the aircraft it replaces the Harrier, we seem to forget that fact.
These users liked the author bobp for the post (total 4):
serge750PhillyJCaribbeanRon5

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

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.
It'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.

The Buccaneer could carry, in the AAR role for the FAA, 2640 gallons of fuel (1560 gal in the 8 fuselage tanks, 250 gal in each slipper tank, 440 gal in the bomb bay tank and 140 gal in the FRU. In FAA service they didn't use the 450 gal bomb bay door tank however). 2640 gal of JP4 fuel is around 15,840 lbs of fuel. The last 4,000 lbs of fuel was not transferable however, float valves shut the system off when it reached that point. So 11,840lbs were potentially transferable, although in practice it would have been far less, the AAR aircraft itself has to use fuel to reach the refueling point and generally fly...a KF-35B could be carrying 22,500lbs of fuel in total...a fair bit more than Buccaneer could manage.

But....
Ron5 wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 15:52 A special KF-35B makes little sense to me.
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. In the past this hadn't been an issue as they had older, support aircraft to do the job, some of which were just using up time before retirement (Skywarrior, KA-6, S-3 etc.) but when they had to use SuperHornet for the job, for want of anything else, they noted a real impact on the airwing.

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...
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 3):
zanahoriadonald_of_tokyoRon5

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote: 01 Jan 2023, 15:53 Buccaneer was an all time classic. The USN should have bought them.
Only if it got the avionics from the A-6...or even the TSR.2...the only drawback to it was the avionics not being as good as they could have been.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Are we getting bit too far away from disussion of the Aircraft Carriers themselves?
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post (total 2):
djkeosPhillyJ

Post Reply