Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Posted: 02 Jan 2023, 05:05
News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://www.ukdefenceforum.net/
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...
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.
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. ...
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. ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I understand E-7 is AWACS like assets, powerful radar, very good analysis power, high resolution and long-range.