British and American carrier aircraft fly together

If they were armed and flew to the same area of operation, wouldn’t they also need refuelling?

Yeah, but can’t they take fuel from the 5 huge tanks they can carry.

I don’t think it would work like that. Ignoring stealth (as you seem to be), the only difference in the fit between the two configurations you have described is the one carries fuel and the other air-to-surface missiles. The strike planes can also carry drop tanks.

If all take off at max load or are immediately fully refuelled locally to the carrier, the extra weight of the fuel carried by buddy tankers at the start of the mission can’t exceed by much the weight of the air to surface weaponry carried by the strike planes (hard points constraints aside).

Let’s say the strike planes carry eight Spear 3 internally, total weight 800kg, along with drop tanks and air-to-air. The buddy tanker can probably only carry 1 tonne of fuel extra, and even with one buddy tanker per strike plane, they can only transfer half that. So you can expect the increase in range for the group to be given by about half a ton of fuel covering both directions. I don’t think it would be worth it.

Better to just develop the conformal and drop tanks I think, and wait for a proper organic tanker to be bought/produced.

Have you read Phoenix Squadron by Roland White? Ark Royal in 1972 made a solo dash across the Atlantic to launch 2 Buccaneers to Belize and back across the entire Caribbean. They got supported by 2 buddy AAR on the way out and again on the way back.

No. I haven’t. Did the buddy tankers fly all the way to the target as Reaper was proposing?

No. The mission pair were unarmed and full of drop tanks, the AAR buddies the same. They all took off somewhere near Bermuda, did the AAR approaching Florida and the buddies returned. The mission pair flew to Belize city for one low level pass as a show of force nearby, then flew back past Florida to meet the buddy pair again (now on their second sortie). The mission pair got followed by a USAF QRA pair as they approached Florida the second time because they had come from the direction of Cuba! Ark R also “shortened” the distance during the flight by continuing to do 30kn as she had been doing for the past few days dashing across the Atlantic. No other ship could keep up so she was on her own. It’s a good read.

It depends if they are thinking of a common UAAR/ UCAV system, my understanding is they are considered two different airframes?

I would assume this will end up being a joint UK designed, Carrier capable RAF/ RN UCAV (as both projects, Sea Vixen and Mosquito, will probably dovetail into one) and an off the shelf US UAAR drone.

Hi Reaper,

It would essentially be a very different airframe because of the landing stresses are so much higher on a carrier aircraft compared to a land based aircraft.

The best aircraft that operated from both land and carriers was the F4 Phantom IMO. It is no accident that it started out as a carrier plane. The Buccaneer wasn’t too shabby either.

The French did a good job of developing the Rafale M but it is likely that it was significantly more expensive per unit given there were only a few built and it is 500kg heavier than the C version from which it was developed.

This is increase in weight is due to the need to significantly increase the strength of the airframe and the undercarriage. Also, the front undercarriage leg was lengthened to increase take off angle off attack – possibly requiring changes to the mechanism and / or undercarriage bay to get everything folded away.

Cheers CR

This is the thing that time and again proponents of cats and traps fail to bring up.

Aircraft for them have to be considerably strengthened and even then undergo an incredible amount of wear.

Not that STOVL/VTOL doesn’t add weight, take up space and induce wear, and therefore increase cost, but at the end of the day it’s pretty much a wash between them.

If that happens that would be brilliant. Is there an article or are you reading between the lines ?

As I say speculation.

But with all these things are you going to use QEC as a trials barge?

Hope your right.

Hi SB,

The navy have said that they are going to use the PoW for trials, but I agree that cutting her about to try EMALS is most unlikely. Using her for UAV trials while we build up the F35b fleet makes sense. It would be a low intensity activity, saving hull wear and tear whilst generating significant opportunities to expand our UAV development programme.

Also I do not see any plan (yet) for a specialist RN or RFA platform that would justify EMALS. The description of the T32 as a frigate suggests something too small for the EMALS RFI recently circulated by the MoD / RN. As such I think the RFI was issued to support studies looking into options for a future capability insertion on the QEC.

I think AAR, AEW and possibly in the longer term loyal wingman UAV’s are being considered by the RN. The loyal wingman option may in part justify the reduction in F35b procurement and could lever of the RAF’s programmes.

Cheers CR

I think it is the Albion or Bay replacements that will ultimately host these. The top might look more like Ocean?

It could even be the Solids ships – anything really big ……. but that might conflict with carrying explosives…..

Hi SB,

If we do get a Ocean-esque amphib then larger more capable horizonal take-off and landing UAV’s could be more widely deployed with task groups.

Vertical take-off and landing types could use any suitably sized heli or flight deck, so obviously offer the most flexibility and probably the most cost effective entry into service.

I agree with you that it would be good to see smaller flat tops in the fleet as I think this would free up the QEC for their core fleet role. I also think that we need to remember that the most critical role for the RN is securing our sea lines of communications (SLOC’s).

This will take a different type of vessel one focused on defensive operations, particularly ASW and anti-missile defence of large merchant ships. Given the possibilities of having small VTOL UAV’s armed with weapons similar to Martlet multi-role missiles and light weight torpedos future escorts could potentially be capable of providing effective defensive cover over far wider areas than currently possible. This I think is weher the T32 is aimed.

Given the still limited funds I get the impression that the RN is going to use the QEC’s to explore the former UAV type and a cost effective platform based on a similar contracting / requirement set as the T31, i.e. the T32.

All very encouraging and long term. About time we got round to long term strategic thinking.

Cheers CR

Hi CR…..for the cost of changing our 2 aircraft carries flight decks , could we buy some Ospreys for America

Hi Ian,

Probably, but I don’t think the Osprey will meets the RN’s requirements which have moved on since the Osprey was first introduced.

I think UAV’s are where the RN is heading, effectively jumping a generation of capability. I think this is the right way to go as it takes the long term view, something we really need to start doing more effectively. If not we will continue to lose ground compared to our adversaries.

For long range people carrying roles the RN / RM can access the RAF Chinook fleet. Not as capable as the Osprey for sure, but good enough for UK requirements is seems.

Cheers CR

Would be nice if we could get a cheapo flat top conversion that could fly Helicopters and drones with a mini-Emals… something perhaps built to civilian standards to reduce cost, and in the 20,000t range….

But that would just be madness XD

I wouldn’t bother qualifying it for Helos more cost and too Max Hastings. We have plenty of Helo slots – just need enough cabs…..
Just use it as a trials barge for the drones.

Having a barge that can embark Chinooks and Apaches has proven useful in the past however…

I agree with you.

However, as this is nascent technology, mixing functions is going to make the pathway more uncertain.

Look at it this way. If it is single function you can do whatever you want to the platform to make that function optimised. If you have to compromise that function and requalify for cabs etc you will “learn a lot” painfully slowly and expensively…..

Much better to go ultra cheap’n’cheerful learn the lessons and then build a proper one one things have matured.

Hmmm I don’t know, if you’re just experimenting with the concept of drones then a EMALS installed on an existing airbase would do the same thing, but cheaper.

I feel like if the Navy is going to invest in a ship it needs to be able to be used after the experimentation is done, hence an Ocean type vessel.

Something like the Dokdo-class comes to mind

Ah! I didn’t realise they were that expensive.

Maybe we should by a dozen AW609s (£30 million per aircraft) and convert them for A2A refuelling. They’re cheaper than V22s.

Could potentially buy more to convert into AEW aircraft for the carriers.

Or maybe we should build our own refuelling drone, perhaps base if off BAE Taranis.

No they aren’t. In fact the US Navy doesn’t operate any Hornets at all. The USMC still do, of course, but their deployments aboard are decreasing. Perhaps you’re getting confused with the Super Hornet. And no, they aren’t the same.

True enough Dern, hence my point that China will one day take over…

Cheers CR

Or Taiwan will take over China. 🙂