F-35Bs from HMS Queen Elizabeth have refuelled from a US Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet.

According to the Royal Air Force:

“F-35B Lightnings from 617 Squadron have conducted Air to Air Refuelling from a US Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet for the first time. The refuelling sortie occurred during exercises with the US Navy aircraft carriers USS Ronald Reagan and USS Carl Vinson in the Pacific region. This was part of interoperability training, and is known as buddy-buddy refuelling.

During the exercise RAF Marham based 617 Squadron also took the opportunity to conduct a joint fly past with US Navy and US Marine Corps jets over the combined fleet of carriers and their escorts.”

What’s going on?

The United Kingdom’s carrier strike group led by HMS Queen Elizabeth, and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Forces led by Hyuga-class helicopter destroyer JS Ise joined with U.S. Navy carrier strike groups led by flagships USS Ronald Reagan and USS Carl Vinson to conduct multiple carrier strike group operations in the Philippine Sea.

The integrated at-sea operations brought together more than 15,000 Sailors across six nations, and demonstrates the U.S. Navy’s ability to work closely with its unmatched network of alliances and partnerships in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific.

You can read more about their activities here.

British carrier leads international fleet into waters claimed by China

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

81 COMMENTS

  1. It must be amazing to be involved in something of this scale: not seen since end of the Cold War or maybe Desert Storm?

        • There was a reason why I cited Desert Storm. It unveiled weapons and capabilities that were generally unknown.

          Assuming DARPA hasn’t been on holiday since then there will be other technologies.

          I’m not saying the Chinese will not have had a few bright ideas of their own. Just that Desert Storm was the last big reveal.

          • Lets hope the Chinese haven’t hacked there way into everything important. I guess we won’t know till we know. Personally I hope we never have to find out.

          • I couldn’t agree more, and doubling their defence budget over this decade with the intention of building a further 400/500 Chengdu J-20 on top of the 150 they now have, plus up to 10x carriers, I shudder to think how a confrontation over Taiwan might play out?

            Annual Report to Congress in 2020

            “Shipbuilding: The PRC has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants.

            In comparison, the U.S. Navy’s battle force is approximately 293 ships as of early 2020.

            China is the top ship-producing nation in the world by tonnage and is increasing its shipbuilding capacity and capability for all naval classes.

            – Land-based conventional ballistic and cruise missiles: The PRC has developed its conventional missile forces unrestrained by any international agreements.

            The PRC has more than 1,250 ground-launched ballistic missiles (GLBMs) and ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometres.

            The United States currently fields one type of conventional GLBM with a range of 70 to 300 kilometres and no GLCMs. – Integrated air defence systems:

            The PRC has one of the world’s largest forces of advanced long-range surface-to-air systems—including Russian-built S-400s, S-300s, and domestically produced systems—that constitute part of its robust and redundant integrated air defence system (IADS) architecture.

            Developments in the PLA’s Modernization and Reform > The People’s Liberation Army Army (PLAA) is the largest standing ground force in the world.

            In 2019, the PLAA continued to transition into a modern, mobile, and lethal ground force by fielding upgraded combat systems and communications equipment and enhancing its ability to conduct and manage complex combined-arms and joint operations.

            > The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)—the largest navy in the world—is an increasingly modern and flexible force that has focused on replacing previous generations of platforms with limited capabilities in favor of larger, modern multi-role combatants.

            As of 2019, the PLAN is largely composed of modern multi-role platforms featuring advanced anti-ship, anti-air, and anti-submarine weapons and sensors.

            – Naval Shipbuilding and Modernization: The PLAN remains engaged in a robust shipbuilding and modernization program that includes submarines, surface combatants, amphibious warfare ships, aircraft carriers, and auxiliary ships as well as developing and fielding advanced weapons, sensors, and command and control capabilities.

            OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China viii

            > The People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and PLAN Aviation together constitute the largest aviation forces in the region and the third-largest in the world, with over 2,500 total aircraft and approximately 2,000 combat aircraft.

            The PLAAF is rapidly catching up to Western air forces across a broad range of capabilities and competencies.

            > The People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) is responsible for the PRC’s strategic land-based nuclear and conventional missile forces.

            The PLARF develops and fields a wide variety of conventional mobile ground-launched ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. The PRC is developing new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that will significantly improve its nuclear-capable missile forces.

            The number of warheads on the PRC’s land-based ICBMs capable of threatening the United States is expected to grow to roughly 200 in the next five years.

            – The PRC is expanding its inventory of the multi-role DF-26, a mobile, ground-launched intermediate-range ballistic missile system capable of rapidly swapping conventional and nuclear warheads.

            – The PRC’s robust ground-based conventional missile forces complement the growing size and capabilities of its air- and sea-based precision strike capabilities.

            > The PLA Strategic Support Force (SSF) is a theatre command-level organization established to centralize the PLA’s strategic space, cyber, electronic, and psychological warfare missions and capabilities.

            The SSF Network Systems Department is responsible for cyberwarfare, technical reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and psychological warfare. Its current major target is the United States.

            – The PRC’s Space Enterprise. The PRC’s space enterprise continues to mature rapidly. Beijing has devoted significant resources to growing all aspects of its space program, from military space applications to civil applications such as profit-generating launches, scientific endeavours, and space exploration.

            – The PLA has historically managed the PRC’s space program.

            The SSF Space Systems Department is responsible for nearly all PLA space operations.

            – In 2019, the PRC described space as a “critical domain in international strategic competition” and stated the security of space provided strategic assurance to the country’s national and social development.

            > Military Readiness: In recent years, CCP leaders have directed the PLA to improve its combat readiness.

            This guidance is increasingly evident in the intensity of the PLA’s training and the complexity and scale of its exercises.”

            https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF

          • Numbers and quantity mean nothing in warfare. If you cannot grasp that simple truth, then sensible discussion, any discussion, is pointless.

          • Perhaps you need to inform the US and other allies in the region Marius?

            Nothing to worry about!

            “Numbers and quantity mean nothing in warfare”

            Or are you referring to the defeat by the Taliban in Afghanistan?

          • Exactly, SB , even though we called it OP Granby, ,Desert Storm ,had more of a Hollywood Punch too it , with virtually live feed destruction of Iraq assets the first CNN live ish front room War .Would the Next war be as quick one sided in my opinion, I hope it doesn’t happen !!!!

        • The PLAN has a very very long way to go to match the USN In every aspect. Capability, global reach, supply chain, traning and real world experience,and firepower. The USN attack boat fleet alone could create havoc for the PLAN, let alone the surface fleet.

      • He also said by peaceful means. China has nothing to gain from conflict with Taiwan, let alone America and the west in general.

        • I don’t know but I guess China will invade Taiwan only when it thinks it can be sure of winning. That will include the assumption of heavy US involvement. If anything has changed in their calculations it will be who else would be involved and that is important even if inponderable. We’re a small part of that.

        • Agree. China may have the military mass now to launch against Taiwan and definitely in a few years time, but if military planners worldwide must have noted, from Overlord to Enduring Freedom, no battle plan survives first contact with an enemy. Taiwan is not an impoverished, 3rd world country. It has a numerous and very well equipped and maintained military. The topography alone of the country will be difficult for an invasion force to cope with. The Chinese officer class have zero experience of being in actual combat and sustaining losses and coping with fast moving tactical events.
          That’s before allowing for any potential US or other Western intervention, and worldwide fallout. I think that the Chinese know that any attack on Taiwan will be grindingly bloody on them.

          • Agreed. Some seem to enjoy bigging up the Chinese threat. Now they are certainly spending a lot of money, and have big ambitions. But they lack the depth in quality and experience. And still struggle with the technology we take for granted (a decent fighter engine for a start) And lot’s of scary sounding weapon systems that are totally unproven.

          • China will play the long game to gauge the west’s response as it chips away at Taiwan’s independence. They saw the west stand back and do nothing as they completely stripped HK of its autonomy. They already know the self interested EU will do the bare minimum as Germany is heavily invested in China so it will be down to how strong the political will is in South Korea, Japan, India and the US to challenge their dominance in the region.

        • Not exactly, he said if possible but don’t underestimate our resolve. China’s belligerence over Hong Kong has meant there’s very few options to settle this peacefully. Taiwan will have looked on at what’s happened in Hong Kong with horror.

          • Yes, but it doesn’t mean imminent invasion. What have they to gain from conflict. Economic ruin, cut off from the rest of the world, and that’s before you get to the really serious stuff

          • China has a made in China policy so everything needs to made in China by 2025. They have also bought a number of allies like Iran, Pakistan and other nations not to mentionthe belt and road initiative. China is planning for this exact scenario.

      • “The PLAAF is rapidly catching up to Western air forces across a broad range of capabilities and competencies.” ???

      • Ordinarily, the Stingray cannot take off from the Queen Elizabeth carriers, even if it used the ramp. With a single smallish output engine, it doesn’t have the power to weight ratio for a short distance take-off. The MOD’s request for information (RFI) on the current state of EMALS is a shot in the right direction. The RFI called for an EMALS “light” version, that could be fitted to a ship from 2025.

        The weight category they are calling for is to launch an aircraft of up to 24,948kg (55,000lbs) and then recover it using an arrestor system up to 21,319kg (47,000lbs). These figures are lower than the empty weights of the F18, F35 and Hawkeye aircraft, but much higher than say a Protector type UAV. There’s very few aircraft that meet this limit, one of which is possibly the Stingray. Boeing and the USN have not released any weight figures eg empty weight/max all up weight for the aircraft. The only details that has been released is by Boeing, who have said the aircraft can carry more than 16,000lbs of fuel.

        The Stingray has yet to land on or take off from a carrier. But other UAVs have done it in the past, such as the Northrop Grumman X47B. This aircraft was I believe the first large fixed wing UAV to land and take off from a carrier. The X47B is slightly smaller than the Stingray and has a published max all up weight of 44,567 lb (20,215 kg). The assumption is that the MoD’s RFI coincides with the Stingray program. If the aircraft is slightly heavier, I’m sure the RFI specification can be modified to match the aircraft.

          • Closed cycle gas turbines used to generate power for the National Grid gain efficiency over open cycle versions by extracting the waste heat to raise steam for a steam turbine, so it would’ve been possible if designed from the start. Not likely as an after-thought.

        • Wouldn’t V22s – perhaps borrowed from our good friends the USMC – with the refuelling kit be far more sensible then expensive buggering around with unproven technology and refitting our wonderful new and so far trouble free carriers

          • Possibly, if it’s based on the CMV22B version. This has the larger sponsons to carry more internal fuel. You can currently squeeze three extended range ferry tanks (ERT) in the cabin. They don’t fill up the whole space as you never get them past the ramp. Much like the Chinook’s ERTs the tank’s take up 5/6 of the cabin width. Thereby allowing the crew passage down one side. The tank’s are smaller than a Chinooks possibly carrying no more than 1500kgs of fuel (probably 1200kgs).

            So if we consider the aircraft can carry 4500kgs in the ERTs and another 1500kgs of its own fuel that could be used to transfer through the system to the frogmen system. Then 6000kgs is about 1200kgs shy of what the Stingray should be able to carry.

            As an interim measure, I think the Osprey would be a good choice, especially if it was used for other tasks when not on refueling duties. However, I believe a Stingray type of UAV is the better option. Especially if it’s just flying boring circuits for 8 hours.

          • I think overall I would just prefer it in properly backing what we already have (i.e. buy a decent amount of F35s, get all our weapons on them (and a few more like NSM and Storm Shadow) before they rip up decks on our carriers.

            How does that fuel compare to what a Hornet can offload as a buddy? Can the F35 do buddy refuelling (at the loss of Stealth obviously)

          • When a Super Hornet flies as a tanker it uses five external fuel tanks loaded on to its pylons. The centreline tank is a combined fuel tank and drogue assembly, that houses 1200L of fuel. The remaining four external tanks carry 1800L each giving it a total of 8400L (1L of jet A1 = 0.79kg) therefore 6636kg. The aircraft can also transfer some of its internal fuel over to the receiving aircraft. The F/A18E carries internally some 6667kg of jet A1 making a total of 13,303kg (23,173L) of fuel.

            However, most of the F18’s internal fuel will not be available, as this will be needed to get off the carrier, fly to the designated area, do a few circuits then return to the carrier including a safety margin. Boeing have developed conformal fuel tanks for the F18, which was part of the Block 3 package. The US Navy cancelled this requirement. However, they could hold an additional 1949 Litres of fuel.

            If there was the desire, the F35 could technically be configured as a tanker. According to publications, the F35B carries 6123kg of fuel internally. From my understanding only the inner wing pylons have been plumbed for fuel. These are cleared to carry a weight of 2268kg each. Which would be about 3950 Litres of fuel, therefore a total of (2268 x 2 + internals) 10,659kg or 18,570 Litres of Jet A1. If the two middle pylons were plumbed for fuel, this would add about 2268kg (3950L) to the total, i.e. 12,927kg (22,518L). If we then looked at the centre pylon, which is cleared for around 450kg and guessed that the drogue assembly used 1/3 of the available weight, leaving us with 300kg for fuel. The grand total would be about 13,227kg (23,041L of Jet A1).

            Therefore, the F35B could carry nearly as much fuel as the F18E, give or take 76kg. If it was a F35C it would be significantly more. However, it would be a terrible waste to use a F35 as a tanker.

          • Nope.

            The V22 doesn’t have that much payload, costs a fortune to buy and costs a fortune to run.

            You’d also need a credible fleet size to make the availability and economics work.

          • I was wondering more if we could borrow them off the USMC at mates rates. And whilst expensive to run they are surely cheaper then ripping up the decks of our carriers to install a bunch of unproven systems….

          • See my comment below.

            You **might** see USMC units on board QEC supporting USMC. They are QEC qualified.

            However, I don’t think the Osprey AAR refuelling kit was ever fully qualified nor is it a full rate production system.

          • And debris ingestion…..

            It is far from perfect: hence why investing in it is not a great idea….

          • This is because the disc loading is high, which was a design consent driven by the USN requirement that the aircraft must be able to taxi past the island on a Wasp class LHD. This compromised the prop-rotor length, requiring the rotors to spin faster to develop lift when in the hover.

            The Bell V280 Valor solves this problem as its a small airframe so the prop-rotor ratio has been sized to provide adequate lift at a slow rotor speed.

            I am hoping that there will be a Osprey Mk2, designed with the lessons learnt from the Valor, such as fixing the engines in the horizontal position, which significantly reduces hot gas re-ingestion, fod and having the exhaust only 3 ft from the ground. Which will hopefully make it cheaper to purchase, operate and maintain.

          • V22s is a non-starter due to its unit cost for the number we need, was considered by the Navy during the FHP future helo program, but they selected Merlin. and @ the time their service record was not great and didn’t like seawater, service cost £PM is also high, and another nail is it would come under Air Transport so RAF would man. Quintiq has a design scheme to install drone launch and recovery onto the QE Class, without tearing the class apart.
            BUT the contract with Air Tanker is quite restrictive in terms of the UK Govs Armed forces and its re-fueling assets, it’s why A400ms not converted.

        • This is almost certainly the thought process.

          My *guess* is that the UAV’s will be launched from converted merchant ships for version #1to gain experience.

          I simply don’t see then cutting up a QEC for trials use when you can use a cheap ship instead.

          • I agree. The 2025 proposal date seems awfully soon. Are any of the two ships due a long maintenance period at that time? As that would be the best time to install the system and make modifications to the deck.

            If they are installing cats and traps, will they be following the earlier CATOBAR design, with a single forward cat and a port waist cat? Clearly they can’t use the forward one, as that is where the ramp is currently, leaving the port side the best option. I don’t think putting it parallel to the ramp on the bow would be a good idea. As the ramp would probably cause weird airflows around that area that would need a lot of investigating. Plusyou would be restricting the type of aircraft that you use, as the ramp will put a restriction on how wide the aircraft’s wing span can be.

            According to the aircraft carrier alliance, the below deck areas for EMALS are still in place. The question I would ask though, will they be including the angled deck? As landing along the deck will preclude any other activity, thereby slowing down your sortie rates.

            You’re right, we don’t currently have a ship that has 300ft of clear flat deck space, which would be needed as a trials ship. Perhaps we may see a commercial ship converted to a flat deck trials ship, though I doubt it?

          • A Max Hastings mashup on the horizon?

            I almost shudder to think what that twit will about being right all along!!

          • Forget going full Catobar, yes the space is there but none of the design or conversion work was taken past the early design phase, After the failed conversion of Sea Typhoon, QE is due to service in 2023 where she will be brought inline with POWs,

          • Navy Lookout covered some of the options available in a thread.

            Cats, traps and UAS – the Royal Navy considers options for carrier-launched drones

            “In February this year, the MoD issued a Request for Information (RfI) to industry to assess the state of electromagnetic launch and arrestor technology available for fitting to the aircraft carriers.

            The requirement is for a system capable of launching an aircraft with all-up weight up to 55,000lbs (24,949Kg). This would be inadequate for launching an armed F-35C or F/A-18 Super Hornet (but would be powerful enough to launch the MQ-25 Stingray air-air refuelling UAS).

            Most importantly, this would enable the operation of a wide range of small-medium sized future UAS.

            There appears to be an aggressive time schedule, with the RfI demanding a solution that is “sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023”.”

            https://www.navylookout.com/cats-traps-and-uas-the-royal-navy-considers-options-for-carrier-launched-drones/

          • there is a design to install a launch rail on the Starboard side of the ski jump. using a rail system using a development catapult system. recovery is not as complicated as they are looking at if the drone is Empty, its actually going to be fairly light, and a simple Arrestor system on the rear of the flight line. all tested and designed ON CAD. all looks a tidy option, just waiting for tech to catch up.

          • What if the drone has to re-land when its heavy? You cannot have the drone circling for hours burning and dumping fuel, if its got a fault for example. If there’s a chance of something going wrong, it will in due course. Therefore, there must be a plan for recovering a heavy drone, hence the RFI’s arrestor requirement of 21,319kg (47,000lbs).

            I am not too sure about putting a catapult running parallel to the ramp. If you look at the ramp design, it is shaped to promote airflow over the lip of the ramp, thereby provide a lift boost to the F35B when taking off. This means there will be lots of vortices spinning over the edges of the ramp, especially where it is has a vertical face (high pressure to low pressure area) facing into the wind. These vortices will mean the airflow on the flat part of the deck at the bow, will likely be unpredictable and may cause wind sheer in this area. Which will be a major problem if you are trying to launch a lightweight drone. This may be one of the reasons that the Qinetiq Bashees were launched on the port side away from the ramp.

            In engineering there is a saying of: “keep it simple stupid!” Which is where you keep the design relatively simple to reduce risk and the unknown unknowns. By placing a catapult system on the port side, you will be operating in relatively clean air. If placed next to the ramp, you will have to carry out lots of investigation to study the airflow around that area, which takes time and it may end up needing to modify the ramp to clean up the airflow. Which then may need recertifying for F35B launches (more cost and time).

          • I agree and the refuelling drone will likely double as loyal wing man returning with unspent stores would mean these need to be dumped into the sea, an expensive option.

        • Don’t we have Vixen in the pipe line? Likely a version or same as the RAF Mosquito drone. Another option would be an Aeralis version. I see they’ve added some options to their designs for modular aircraft with a single seat for extra fuel, next logical step is unmanned with even more fuel.

  3. I recall learning about the development of a self contained buddy buddy refuelling system for the old A4 Skyhawk turning it into makeshift low capacity tanker. It even had a wind powered generator to provide electricity to the winch/pipe/basket arrangement.

    Just out of interest. Are British F35B’s cleared to carry “buddy stores” to refuel each other?

    • In theory it’s possible, but nobody has built external buddy tanks for it yet. Cobham is actually the leader in this area, so it would really be appropriate for the RAF/RN to lead the way on it. The USN/USMC just doesn’t have the budget for it at the moment and the hornets already have the ability.

      • Don’t think we will have enough airframes available to be able to use/waste flight hours/strike capacity putting buddy stores on 2-3 aircraft ?

        • Exactly – why use a precious £100m plane, use airframe hours and flight hours costs, to do something a £10m drone can do?

          • fit booms to K3 Voyagers then can trail a K2 out to the CSG into can fly AAR anchor then tank again on way back!! much cheaper option with other benefits ie: E-7 & P-8 could also support CSG 🙂

          • Completely different situation.

            Yes there is a need for sovereign refuelling of all types in service.

            If you go large fixed wing AAR you are back to Black Buck refuelling for the remoter corners of
            the globe and zero chance of persistent AAR with CSG.

            Drones are the way to go for CSG as USN and USMC are doing. I would suspect that Japan and Italy are going in the same direction.

          • that is not a cheap option. NAO released the costs from Airbus. and there is a trade-off with the endurance of boom fitted MRRTs, as the retrofit needs structural works.

          • sounds about right save 10mil now by not having a capability to have to spend 100mil later (example numbers before people shout at me) when decide that oh that would be useful 🙁 SNAFU reigns

  4. For the life in me, I can’t understand why the UK hasn’t taken a wee step back in tech and looked at a wee refueling aircraft based on something like the Gannet, designed to take off from the current carriers, which could top up F35s a few hundreds miles out

    • various ideas have been banged around, but current logic is very early in the class life cycle, and expect the UK to follow the American logic of drone tanker, They just have old capabilities that can still be called on, but USMC has a similar need as the RN with there Assult class.

    • I’d be included to agree but we’re now going down the drone route with the Vixen drone, would make sense to develop that at pace

  5. Coming late to this article but please explain something. How can dedicated combat jets carry enough spare fuel to refuel other combat aircraft without compromising their own mission? Its like your car is low on petrol and your mate siphons out a gallon/5 litre to help out? Is this just an urgency/emergency capability?

    • Tankers don’t carry weapons, just refuelling pod under fuselage and fuel tanks under wings. they take off refuel strike/cap then return to refuel and repeat. hence the issue USN having with the hornets running out of airframe life quickly

    • Those Jet’s tasked with Refuelling won’t be part of the Strike Package is my guess, in effect sacrificing their capability for AAR.

      • Sometimes they are part of the strike package. Normally they will be between 2 to 300 miles away from the carrier flying circuits in a predetermined area, waiting for aircraft to come a calling.

        However, they can also be used to extend the strike packages range. This is where you use tanker aircraft to top up other tanker aircraft, as per the Black Buck missions. The problem here is that it reduces the number of aircraft that be used as the bombers/fighters as more will be required to be rerolled as tankers, especially as there is a finite number of aircraft available on a carrier.

    • They are often used top up strike package aircraft after take-off. The F18 will fly a tanker line not far from the carrier, so the launching aircraft don’t need to be completely full of fuel for take-off. They then top up, and head on their merry way. They can also be used to top up anyone having a bad time landing back on deck. Missed bolters use a lot of fuel, as full reheat or max dry is selected on touch down incase the hook misses the wire, so they can safely go around again. Pretty stressful during a black night, and a pitching deck. Also an advantage of STOVL decks. The aircraft always land, first time, every time.

    • Unfortunately the Aeralis is too small to be a useful tanker aircraft. It is after all a similar size to the Hawk it is designed to replace. It could be adapted to work as a loyal wingman though.

      • Isn’t that the point of Aeralis though as a modular airframe you remove the cockpit and fit revised wings to increase lift and house more fuel, go for the leanest engine package. Anyway all mute we need more specs on the centre fuselage as technical aspects like landing gear will be key as to what Aeralis will ultimately be able to offer in payload terms.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here