Aircraft Carriers III

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Fuel margins can be intentionally very tight on return to the ship, as there is no requirement to keep any in case of a 'bolter. With STOVL aircraft, you land on the deck first time everytime, and you don't want more fuel as deadweight than necessary

Yeah, I stated as much myself - but compared to a F-35C let alone Rafale M & Super Hornet with external tanks (hell, even a Su-33/J-15), the deficit in fuel fraction is such that no amount of parsimony with the landing reserves is going to offset the shortfall. And these competitors have tanker support available, if the F-35B cannot take advantage as well it will be even more decidedly inferior in strike range. Not to mention it kind of defeats the purpose of a stealthy, survivable aircraft when the carrier has to approach so close to enemy shores that it is at greatly elevated risk of attack.

Wasn't there a proposal to use V-22s for refuelling? Considering its impressive payload, that could work really well! What became of it?
 
...

Wasn't there a proposal to use V-22s for refuelling? Considering its impressive payload, that could work really well! What became of it?
for your information, the RN doesn't have money for AShMs Nov 11, 2016
... yeah:
UK to retire GWS60 Harpoon at end of 2018
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... self-censored part ...
sea-mines Apr 5, 2017
hmmmm
Possible future capability Minelaying
Notes An absurd capability gap, but UK has no existing stock of naval mines
April 4, 2017
Restoring the UK’s maritime patrol aircraft capability (Part 2)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and so on

(I guess you know an Osprey is in $100m price range)
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Yeah, I stated as much myself - but compared to a F-35C let alone Rafale M & Super Hornet with external tanks (hell, even a Su-33/J-15), the deficit in fuel fraction is such that no amount of parsimony with the landing reserves is going to offset the shortfall. And these competitors have tanker support available, if the F-35B cannot take advantage as well it will be even more decidedly inferior in strike range. Not to mention it kind of defeats the purpose of a stealthy, survivable aircraft when the carrier has to approach so close to enemy shores that it is at greatly elevated risk of attack.

Wasn't there a proposal to use V-22s for refuelling? Considering its impressive payload, that could work really well! What became of it?
Everyone keeps harping on about the range of the F-35B, but it has to be said it is a vast improvement on the Harrier which we relied upon for three decades. The whole point of Carrier based Strike is that your aircraft can launch from much closer to the enemy than land based aircraft can, shorter sortie times mean more sorties can be generated per day, which was one of the prime considerations in the design specs of the QECs. A sortie that lasts two or three hours is more useful than one that lasts 8 hours with IFR. The former aircraft can fly two or three sorties a day, the latter just one. That's two or three times as many targets that can be hit compared to one long range strike. The QECs were designed for a requirement to carry up to 36 F-35Bs, which on day one of a campaign would mean 36 strike aircraft launched, and assuming they all come back safely, another 36 sorties can be generated meaning 72 strikes per day. If a third sortie can be generated, potentially108 sorties in a single day, on a par with the much larger Nimitz and Ford classes.

If there is an absolute need for tanker support, then the QEC will either be deployed alongside a USN carrier group and rely on their embarked tankers, or Land based large tankers can be deployed in theatre. They can fly much further and for longer and even though that again means a single sortie per day, in the case of a large tanker it can still refuel multiple aircraft per sortie. It's the strike aircraft that need to be turned around rapidly to achieve multiple sorties. As in the apocryphal tale of the Spartan warrior about to leave for war, who complains his sword is too short; his mother replies that he should try standing a bit closer to the enemy...
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
HMS Queen Elizabeth has tweeted the below -

"USNS SUPPLY has joined our Taskgroup with USS LASSEN. Today she gave us our welcome present; F76 dieso fuel.

She also presented @HMS_MONMOUTH with some liquid gold as we increased our @NATO and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
capability.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Reach
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

42850114_10156109139486917_3664953086109024256_n.jpg
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
HMS Queen Elizabeth has tweeted the below -

"USNS SUPPLY has joined our Taskgroup with USS LASSEN. Today she gave us our welcome present; F76 dieso fuel.

She also presented @HMS_MONMOUTH with some liquid gold as we increased our @NATO and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
capability.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Reach
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 49073

Fill er up! with Gulf No nox!
 

Timmymagic

New Member
Registered Member
If there is an absolute need for tanker support, then the QEC will either be deployed alongside a USN carrier group and rely on their embarked tankers, or Land based large tankers can be deployed in theatre. They can fly much further and for longer and even though that again means a single sortie per day, in the case of a large tanker it can still refuel multiple aircraft per sortie.

The amount of fuel a V-22, MQ-25 or F-18 with buddy store can actually offload is ridiculously small. To the point at which its at best a marginal capability. Even bigger carrier aircraft like the Skywarrior couldn't actually carry that much fuel for offloading (admittedly with more modern engines they would be able to). Probably the best was the S-3 tanker. An A330 MRTT can offload 20 times the fuel that any carrier borne tanker can manage.
I've long maintained that the biggest cancellation of the 90's that affected the USN carrier air wing was not the A-12, which was never going to work but the cancellation of the Common Support Aircraft, which was far more feasible. It would have replaced the S-3 Viking, C-2 Greyhound, EA-6B Prowler, ES-3 Shadow and the E-2C Hawkeye. The savings could have been immense and the capabilities far in excess of the present platforms. It would have retained fixed wing ASW, delivered a larger and better tanker, negated the need for the EA-18G meaning more strike fighters on deck, no need for development of the CMV-22 and E-2D and saved a load of very expensive flight hours and wear and tear on the F-18 fleet doing buddy tanking.. The USN, if it had gone ahead, could have concentrated their efforts on a UCAV capability to do the mission the A-12 was designed for rather than using the MQ-25 as a tanker.
 
I recalled ... Mar 22, 2018
it's very interesting (actually I'm going to read it again at some point) Fight to Hawaii: How the U.S. Navy is Training Carrier Strike Groups for Future War
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... goes on below due to size limit
while now reading about the COMPTUEX inside
Truman Carrier Strike Group Leveraging Unusual Deployment to Work on Undersea Warfare, Strengthen Northern NATO Partnerships
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
the point is night in the tweet
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!





Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
flying trials progressing well, with both day & night sorties now off
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Another pic to demonstrate the awesome capability for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
&
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
...makes us proud in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
...enlarge & see another jet on deck.

DodSVE5W0AAhZcn.jpg
 
Top