Apache Mk 1 attacks helicopters of 656 Squadron, 4 Regiment Army Air Corps set sail on RFA Argus recently.

In a news release, the British Army say:

“656 Sqn, based at Wattisham Flying Station in Suffolk, specialises in operating the Apache in maritime and extreme cold weather conditions and is kept at very high readiness to deploy in support of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. The purpose of the five-week-long Exercise Chinthe Drift was to expose pilots, groundcrew and engineers to the different demands of working on a ship afloat in the Atlantic Ocean. “

Adding:

“Pilots new to the squadron qualified in landings and take offs from RFA Argus’ flight deck; groundcrew learnt the challenges of handling Apaches on a deck also occupied by Merlin support helicopters from the Commando Helicopter Force; and Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers aircraft and avionics technicians performed complex repairs and maintenance in a cramped hangar.”

RFA Argus, usually operating as a sort of ‘hospital ship’, will be converted to deliver greater littoral strike capability. The Primary Casualty Receiving Ship also features an extensive flight deck and is no stranger to Apache helicopters.

In 1991, during the Gulf War, she was fitted with an extensive and fully functional hospital to assume the additional role of Primary Casualty Receiving Ship. In 2009, the PCRS role became the ship’s primary function. She also saw service in the Adriatic in 1993 and 1999, supporting British operations in Bosnia and over Kosovo respectively.

Originally, a Bay class vessel was to be converted to deliver greater littoral strike capabilities at a cost of £40 million. The Defence Command Paper released two years ago, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, stated:

“The Royal Navy will invest £40m more over the next four years to develop our Future Commando Force as part of the transformation of our amphibious forces, as well as more than £50m in converting a Bay class support ship to deliver a more agile and lethal littoral strike capability.

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

175 COMMENTS

    • I was about to share that. It sounds like the Mojive drone will be a platform used to relearn the conventional carrier aircraft rather than a combat platform.
      Overall that plan seems to suggest that in 10-20 years we will get a carrier suited to all types of carrier aircraft.

      • Check the spec they issued for Catalog and Traps in 2022 it rules out manned due to weight so UAS only.

          • Indeed, what they seemed to be getting at was intraoprability with the us and France. Now I can understand looking at launching and recovering heavy drones..but going to the Effort to allow Rafale etc to opportunistically deploy seems a bit bonkers…better to spend the money on doubling down on the advantages of VSTOL..like some new generation tilt rotors doing AEW and Refueling.

          • Pink flying pigs TBH.

            Unless there is a big lump of money hiding behind BW’s sofa: this is a non starter.

            Adding sponsons could be done – anything could be done…..this is expensive stuff and was analysed to death many times prior to this.

            The biggest argument against piloted CATOBAR is pilot training and crewing costs – they are huge.

            UAV CATOBAR I get and this is more likely but I’d strongly suggest testing it on a merchant conversion before carving up a £3Bn QEC.

            There is something about over egging puddings in this. What we have works perfectly well: stop fiddling.

          • The truth is, cross decking with CATOBAR aircraft is very rare. Rafales have spent some time on a US carrier for training back in 2018 for a month, and did a few touch and goes in 2022. But no long operational deployments. Nothing like the USMC F35B’s on the QE the other year. Super Hornets also haven’t spent anytime on the CDG. Joint VSTOL ops with F35B is much easier. The cats n Traps will be good for heavy drones without a doubt.

          • Let’s be honest, we are looking at a situation where even keeping present capabilities and numbers are a challenge…the Elizabeths as they are the second most potent navel aviation capability on the planet after US carriers…..I think the MOD have a lot of other things to spend any cash on….even drone wise I think anything other than a drone that can use the present flight deck and some tilt rotor capability is out of the question and a waste of precious defence pounds.

          • Well I would say the planned 2-3 squadrons of 5th generation strike aircraft is pretty potent…and even our present availability of f35 is more than any peer adversary can put on a carrier.

          • Agree even now a QE carrier with upto 18 UK F35Bs would still be superior to a Ruskie or Chinese carrier airwing.
            If allies came onboard eg Italy, USMC, Japan then numbers of F35Bs can go upto theoretical 36 maximum.

          • Realistic war situation and our allies are going to want their jets defending their own assets, so 18 is all we realistically would have. Still potent but when you consider you would need a number providing cap for the task force, it wouldn’t leave many available for strike /attack missions

          • The F35 would totally dominate fourth gen J15 which is poor knock of of an SU33, which itself is a soviet design that first flew 35 years ago..as for 60 well the Chinese have 2 operational carriers that can carry around 24 J15s..so yes the UK carrier force is far superior.

          • They currently have more 5th gen fighters than the entire Russian Air Force, so pretty damn potent.

          • Jonathan and Sean,
            I don’t know why it is that this ‘plane raises so many emotions. The facts are simple. It has taken since 2018 to achieve one operational squadron of eight aircraft, no 617. That’s it. The planned 2/3 operational squadrons is for two carriers and the RAF. so one squadron each.
            We will have 48 aircraft available by 2026 but it is not planned to have 2/3 squadrons until 2030. The next tranche of aircraft if there ordered because of all the problems and delays with block 4 won’t be available until 2032/2033.
            As of this week we are discussing bringing drones into the equation and even re modelling the flight deck! Cats and traps? Yet another change. F18’s have been mentioned
            If, my friends, you believe that this is good enough for our forces then that’s fine. I don’t.

          • Maybe because it’s because people peddle so much inaccurate and false information about it…

            We have 29 F35Bs, flying with 617, 207, 17 squadrons, and to be joined by 809 this year (not 2030).
            A further 7 will be delivered this year, and 11 more in 2024/2025.

            The next tranche of 27 will be delivered between 2026 and 2033 from production lots 15,16, and 17.

            To put into context, that means we already operate DOUBLE the number of 5th generation jets that Russia does.

            Adding drones to the carriers as a means of increasing capabilities has been under investigation since 2012 with the RN committed to testing the Mojave STOL version of the MQ-9B last month.

            As for cat and traps for drone launches, the RN began looking at these in 2021 with the MoD issuing a RFI that year. The same year it experimented launching Banshee drones from HMS PoW.

            These cat and traps are specifically for drone launches.

            So much for your “as of this week” hysteria.

            F18s have been mentioned by idiots, the U.K. has no intention to buy them as it would make no operational sense and simply increase costs unnecessarily.

            Nobody cares what you believe least of all the RN and RAF, thankfully.

          • I should have realised that having a conversation with you is pointless. I talk facts and if you think I don’t prove me wrong. Your abuse is really very childish but I guess you can’t help it.

          • My response is full of facts, whereas your post was full of fiction. If you don’t want to be shown to be a liar, don’t post fake news.

          • I would be very careful what you say. Your abuse is getting very close to being libelous. Your comments are not justified or welcome.. If you have a single item where you can say I have deliberately lied or misled anyone now is the time to state it. Choose your words carefully

          • Ooh ”libellous”!!! I’m quaking in my boots, NOT. What an idiot. 🤦🏻‍♂️

            How about claiming we only have 1 operational ssuadron and won’t have 2 operational squadrons until 2030?

            We currently have 3; one test, one conversion, and one combat, squadrons operational. The 2nd combat squadron, 809 will become operational this year.

            BTW it’s ”libellous” in the King’s English, it our American cousins who spell it as “libelous”

          • So you do agree with me that we have only one operational squadron? So my false claim is where?
            As for the rest of your playschool theatricals it just proves further comment is pointless.

          • I see you’re so eager to reply, you don’t bother to read and comprehend other peoples posts first. Or is it that you pretend not to see the facts when they contradict your fiction?

            We have three operational squadrons; 17 for testing, 207 for conversion training, 617 for combat.
            With a second combat squadron 809 becoming operational this year – not 2030 as you falsely claimed.

          • A test unit and an OCU are not operational no matter how much you want them to be.

          • Tell that to the RAF, they regard them as operational.
            Without them you don’t have any combat squadrons at all.

          • OK Checked that. NO 17 is a test unit in California; 207 is an OCU reserve squadron and surprise… only No. 617 is described as operational. Your turn.

          • If you weren’t so pig ignorant and stupid you would realise you have ‘discovered’ nothing other than what I have posted already, TWICE!!

            Go to the following page
            https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/lightning-f35b/

            If you select any of the mentioned F35 squadrons, it details each squadron
            • 17 is operational as a trial and evaluation
            • 207 is operational as an OCU squadron
            • 617 is operational as a front-line combat squadron.

            If a squadron isn’t operational it isn’t flying. Operational does not mean front-line combat, IDIOT.

          • Now you’ve moved the wording. You know as well as I do that the RAF has been using the term Operational for frontline squadrons only since before the war. ie training squadrons were not operational. However if you really are so desperate to be right I’ll call them combat squadrons. So we only have one combat squadron. There… better now.
            One favour for me in return. Grow up and stop being abusive.

          • Stop posting stupid things and I will.

            If you’d bothered reading AND comprehending my replies you would have understand “operational” means the opposite of “non-operational” rather than “front-line”. A distinction I printed out HOURS ago.
            Squadrons like 17 and 207 are just as essential as 617 if we’re to have an air-force.

            Without 207 we wouldn’t have 617 currently, and 809 in a few months (7 years earlier than you claimed).

            So no, 2 combat squadrons.

          • OK .I’m done I surrender to your outstanding intellect and abuse so no more contact. If you want to count this as some sort of victory which having had this exchange you probably will feel safe in the knowledge that I won’t be reading it.

          • You’re done because you haven’t got a leg to stand on. Your post has demonstrably been proven to be untrue. Hopefully this experience will make you think twice before deliberately making false statements in future.

          • Geoff to be fair, its not so much about operational Sqns but platform availability, as airframes are pooled and hours spread about, which aids longevity and balances flying hours (as I’m sure you are aware), therefore its more about the numbers able to be deployed on one of the carriers, from UK PLC only and that would be about 18 give or take, with a few more for surge ops. That seems pretty good at the moment mate, considering the complexity of the contract and funding issues across the board generally.

          • The one thing I cannot seem to get across to anybody is that even if we have eighteen aircraft they potentaily have to be shared between the RAF and the two carriers., or even just one. What happens for example if the RAF has our one COMBAT squadron occupied in a conflict and a demand occurs for the carrier to have aircraft. We won’t have any available.
            Your final paragraph hits the nail on the head. The complexity of the whole programme is causing delays and because of funding issues we cannot say for sure that there will ever be an improvement, not for years if it happens at all.
            If this was just about the RAF getting 48 F35’s there wouldn’t be a problem but without aircraft we have £7 billion of ships and 1500 crew achieving absolutely nothing.

          • Hi Geoffrey.

            I’d like to see more F35 too. And more Merlins even more. And the 3 FSS vessels. All are on the way.

            But regards the numbers one must always compare with other nations to see where the RN is at. And the RN is way ahead of most, even with the limited assets.

            You also have to take into account the sheer capability of the assets we have, and the complexity of regenerating this.

            I feel, while the RN is regenerating the fixed wing carrier capability, people see in their minds eye HMS Ark Royal from the 70s, deck full of aircraft, and compare to that.

            The comparison is no longer valid mate. 👍

            Luckily, because balancing the sheer costs of this capability with the funds MoD have, the UAV systems are maturing to the point they will augment the manned fixed wing F35 with Drones, which will add more capability, and mass, to the QEC.

            Whether these catapults can handle other types like Rafale and FA18 is a moot point, they are not looking into these for those.

            Your opinion is as valid as everyone else’s mate. Maybe in time you’ll see things in a different light.

          • I don’t have a problem with the mix but there is hardly a single programme at the moment there hasn’t been delayed, reduced or deferred. The world is changing rapidly but sadly I guess I’ll only be proved right or wrong if the s..t hits the fan and we’re not ready🙃.

          • Can’t see UK ever operating F18s or fitting cats and traps ,it’s all talk but the F18 is a fine aircraft.

          • Nor me Andrew but it came up in an article yesterday. Apparently there is talk about deck configuration re the Mojave trials. Would that need a cat and trap? I don’t know.

          • Russia is no longer a threat. Although air wise they haven’t committed their more advanced fighters so who knows how capable they are, but they would only be used against NATO if there was the ground forces to support it and clearly that won’t be happening in the next few decades.

          • Isn’t Frances or china more powerful as currently they have more planes and actual AWACS for their carriers? Whether a smaller number of f35s out power a larger number of Chinese/french jets is debatable I guess. For sure the QEs have the potential to be way more powerful but not until another decade or two, when they actually have enough jets to fill them.

          • France have 2 E2C on their carrier so cannot provide a permanent AWACS capability.
            A dozen F35 would wipe the floor with 30 Rafales on the CdG.

          • Numbers have some advantes. As it’s unlikely all 12 will be air worthy when needed and then a number will need to be held back for defensive activities, meaning very few of them will be available for attack operations.

          • For the Chinese…they have a carrier based airforce based around an aircraft that’s a bad knock off of a soviet aircraft that first flew 35 years ago..a fifth generation air wing would simply take them apart. They also only have 2 operational carriers based on soviet designs that can take around 24 J15s each…the Elizabeth’s are far far superior.

            as for France…it’s single 45,000 ton carrier can carry at most 30 Rafale….vs the over 40+ 5 generation fighters an Elizabeth could carry…again however good a forth generation fighter it is, it cannot compete in the same airspace with 5th generation fighters…it’s would be like trying to fight an F18 based air wing with 1970 phantoms. Also the greatest weakness of the French air wing is it’s not there for 50% of the time.

          • A more reasonable choice of aircraft could have saved the nation more than enough to fit a launch and recovery system

          • I agree, unfortunately that bird has flown at present ( or not flown). But a drone would be very worth while.

          • No, but allied nations might fly them off a QE at some point.
            TBH they don’t even need CAT’s for that. As long as there is an arrestor system I suspect all three can land on a QE in an emergency and then take off with a minimal load to transfer back onto their flatop or airbase.

          • Force multiplier if Tempest could be designed as Carrier capable. Additional to RN, would have thought both Japanese and Italians would be interested

          • 2 of those would be a big downgrade and the third wouldn’t make much sense when we have F35B. However the F/A-XX could be bought in the future so we could operate a split 5th and 6th gen fleet on the carriers.

          • I think that’s more the hope of one person interviewed than an official RN position by the reading of it?

          • Personally looks like a big old waste of money as well. I’m sure the RN will end up Simply doubling down or VSTOL with maybe some heavyweight drone capabilities for the next decade…

          • No the slide it said that the cats would “enable the potential” to use them for manned operations.

            In other words “they’re for drones, but once we have them we might see if it’s possible to use them for manned aircraft too but that’s not the reason why we’re looking at getting them”.

          • But the guy in the article was very clear they were looking at manned options for intraoprability..if they were just going for drones it would be a far lighter and less intrusive set up….cannot disagree with the drone element…but putting the cats and traps in for a full weight fighter….waste of time.

          • The only thing you can be certain of is direct quotes and press-releases from the RN. Those are accountable.
            Everything else is the interpretation and extrapolation of the guy writing the article. He might be right, he might be wrong, but it’s just his thoughts and impression.

            (This is why I hate the modern practice of including Opinion pieces in newspapers- because they are in a newspaper they people consider these as factual rather than the biased opinion of the author.)

          • I tend to find that Navy Lookout is usually pretty good actually- better than another site I could mention 😉

            I think the fact the PowerPoint slide had the launch distances for various drones marked, but not F18, debunked the idea they were looking at manned aircraft.

            Vixen is years away, and at the moment the only options I see are developments of either Ghost Bat or MQ-25 Stingray. I think given the big scare about AI at the moment, having drones making decisions over releasing weapons may be a difficult sell to the public.

            The rest all seems quite achievable actually, though it’d be interesting to see how well the self-flying rotary-craft handle pitching decks in rough weather.

            The most ambitious one in the near term is the Mojave. I don’t think it’s a certainty it’ll be a success due to the many differences between operating from land and at sea… landing in particular.

          • They are looking at crewed aircraft too. F/A-18E F-35C Rafale

            “Boeing announced on Jul. 20, 2022, that its F/A-18 Super Hornet successfully completed operational demonstration tests at Indian Naval Station Hansa in Goa, India.

            The tests were aimed at showing the Super Hornet’s ability to effectively and safely operate off Indian Navy STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) aircraft carriers
             The ramp was 112.1 feet long and 8.58 feet high at ‘he exit when configured for the 9-degree exit angle, measured from the horizontal.

            A total of 112 launches of the T-2C, 28 of the F-14, and 91 of the F/A-18 were made. The minimum ground roll for the F/A-18 was 385 feet at a gross weight of 32,800 lbs. This ramp effectively reduced the takeoff roll of the F-18 by more than 50 percent.”

            “Her flight deck is 280m long 918.635ft and 70m wide – enough space for three football pitches. The ship is the second in the Royal Navy to be named Queen Elizabeth. The ship has a crew of about 700, increasing to 1,600 when a full complement of F-35B jets and Crowsnest helicopters are embarked.”

            LINK

          • To potentially cross deck allied carrier capable aircraft. We won’t be ditching any F35B’s. Any new configuration will still include the ski ramp and F35B flying from it.

          • Just read Nigel’s comment and it makes perfect sense, if we equip the QE’s with the US AAG and an EMALS in the 25KG class we can land anything the US or France has and they have all proven they can take off using a Ski Jump.
            We use the Cat to launch UAVs for MPA, AEW and Tankers.
            The max take off weight of a U.S. MQ-25B is 20k kg with 6k kg of transferable fuel.
            STOBAR with Cat for UAV.

          • And then what.
            The US and French aircraft can be serviced as the ground crew aren’t familiar with them. They probably can’t be armed either because they use different weapons to us… and our ground crews aren’t familiar with arming them.
            So basically hope they don’t need maintenance, refuel them, and hope they can get airborne again.

          • No practical use ? Why does the USN and France practice cross decking and their Aircraft are really incompatible weapons wise ?
            Why did the USMC go in CSG21 (and I’ll bet same again on the next CSG) ?
            Because war and preparing for it is all about scenarios, what ifs and discovering the possibilities.
            Can a U.S, Italian, Japanese, Singaporean operate off a QE yes they can and probably will because landing options are distinctly limited.
            And if just if someone in MOD is serious about this Ark Royal project and fit AAG then you de facto have a STOBAR. So it will get used, if for no other reason than it gives you somewhere to land if someone sticks a hole in yours.
            That’s what NATO does in peacetime they exercise for the ifs.
            And it would be cool as hell 😉

          • Because the USMC use the same aircraft as we do, and we also have commonality of weapons across the F35B.
            The French only have a single carrier. Cross-decking with the USN allows them to keep their pilots certified for carrier operations when CDG isn’t available.

            Project Ark Royal is for future development of naval aviation, ie drones.

            Yes if their home carrier is sunk, it possible that we might see F18s or Rafales land on a QE class carrier. But it would be analogous to that Harrier that landed on the Alraigo. It wouldn’t be for operational purposes.

          • “we also have commonality of weapons across the F35B”…ah so is that why we cant get block 4 sorted to enable us to add our own weapons – The USMC would have to bring & use their own weapons if we enhance the plane to use ours…

          • The cynical might think that 😆
            Though they did bring their own on CSG21.

            Block 4 adds partner nation weapons, a total of 17 different missiles/bombs being added.

          • Unless the pilots were certified to land those planes on our carriers, I doubt they’d be allowed to, especially in an emergency. If you were captain, would you chance allowing a possible crash on your flight deck during a battle, or would you tell the pilot to ditch and send out a Merlin to recover them?

          • For UCAV’S it makes perfect sense. For other nations to randomly drop in with a Super Hornet or Rafale, it does not. Nothing in the real world of carrier aviation is as simple as that. Aircrews need to be deck qualified, which means spending at least a week onboard doing nothing but take-offs and landings. Then another week doing it at night. You need the ground crew on board to provide the engineering support. What if the aircraft goes tech? Are there spare parts on the won’t be. Nothing is as easy as it sounds on a PowerPoint presentation. F35B and heavy UCAV’S and helicopters are a must, Other nations F35B’s will also cross deck. Hornets and Rafales. Very unlikely.

          • Spot on.

            “Until years ago this was only a theoretical reality, until on June 4, 2010, a French Navy Rafale fighter became the first foreign plane to land on a US aircraft carrier, specifically in the USS Harry S. Truman, of the Nimitz class.

            VIDEO

          • Sorry but you are just completely wrong.
            The RN was cross decking Jets with the USN over half a century ago and not just for a touch and go. Deployed with their weapons, support and weapons handlers for exercises.

            Phantoms
            https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060020593

            And a Buccaneer on the USS FDR in 1972

            And if memory serves me it also happened in WW2 and Korea.

          • We even loaned them an entire Carrier once which is just a variation on Cross Decking. HMS Victorious went to the Pacific to operate with the Saratoga using USN aircraft (our pilots) when they ran out of operational carriers her call sign was USS Robin.
            And I am pretty certain the 1st USN manned Aircraft to land on a RN carrier were during that deployment.
            If memory serves it was when Victorious ran out of Spuds in mid Pacific, which isn’t funny.
            The USN flew a TBD over with a plentiful supply of Powdered Potatoes and a USN cook to show us how to make Mash.
            And same happened when we had an outbreak of Diptheria, popped over some Meds and legged it home,
            Buy a book by David Hobbs called The British Pacific Fleet, well worth a read.

          • Wow, Putin’s useful idiots are deploying cartoons now too… shame they don’t understand humour 🤷🏻‍♂️

          • Using an alternative spelling if my name, I see you’re reduced to the antics of a 5 year old now…

          • Well. The fan club includes 18 nations, over 900 aircraft and 26 operating bases across the globe. And increasing. If you think you know better than nations like Israel or Japan, plus the European air arm’s then I’ll wait for your answers on a post card.

          • Bollocks.

            The slide says “potential to enable” manned aircraft, not that the RN is going in this direction. 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

          • “They are looking at crewed aircraft too. F/A-18E F-35C Rafale”

            The slide says “potential to enable” manned aircraft, not that the RN is going in this direction

            Well done, you must have a degree 😂

          • Well done, you must be a politician to be so dishonest as to invent that quote and hope that nobody checks the Navy News article to see if it’s real or not.

          • It’s good to let people see what a sad little man you are Shawn.

            Meanwhile, and for the grownups on here.

            “This would allow the operation of large UAS as well as conventional allied fixed-wing aircraft and future-proof the carriers to carry all kinds of future air vehicles.

            Notably, the longer port cat would allow operation of the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray – a dedicated Air-Air Refuelling UAS developed for the US Navy which would hugely increase operating radius of the F-35s.”

            LINK

          • I see you conveniently omitted the relevant quote from the article

            “A distinction needs to be drawn between the CATOBAR carriers with F-35C planned in 2010 and the new vision for 2030s.”

            We won’t operate allied fixed-wing aircraft period. Our air-crew aren’t trained to maintain or arm them them, they won’t be familiar with our flight-deck procedures.

          • “Well done, you must be a politician to be so dishonest as to invent that quote and hope that nobody checks the Navy News article to see if it’s real or not.”

            It appears to be correct 😂

            It’s called training Shawn 😂

            “I see you conveniently omitted the relevant quote from the article”

            No, conventional allied fixed-wing aircraft 😅

            NAVY LOOKOUT

          • Talking about yourself there?

            As a scientist, I’ll change my position when new facts come to light. So in a discussion with “Supportive Bloke” the other day I changed my view on shared specialist capabilities within NATO in a specialism versus mass debate.
            But then, you’re incapable of debating… 🤷🏻‍♂️

          • Here we go again. “As a scientist”

            What personality disorder is superior?
            Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of feeling superior (grandiosity), needing admiration, and lacking empathy.

            People with narcissistic personality disorder overestimate their abilities, exaggerate their achievements, and tend to underestimate the abilities of others.

          • Ah you’ve got a chip on your shoulder haven’t you?!!! 😆 Probably did an arts course, at a poly perhaps? Or did you not even get the A Levels to go into higher-education at all?

            So you assume that “scientist” is meant as a term of superiority, rather than a simple description of what I do, that’s amusingly… stupid 🤷🏻‍♂️

          • I seriously think you need to stop being silly and read the latest NAVY LOOKOUT post from today.

            https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-navy-has-ambitious-plans-for-its-future-maritime-aviation-force/

            There it is in black and white on the deck plan STOBAR and CATOBAR.

            “ultimate ambition is to have a highly capable hybrid carrier that can still operate F-35Bs using a ramp but also has two electro-magnetic catapults and arrestor wires. This would allow the operation of large UAS as well as conventional allied fixed-wing aircraft and future-proof the carriers to carry all kinds of future air vehicles. Notably the longer port cat would allow operation of the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray – a dedicated Air-Air Refuelling UAS developed for the US Navy which would hugely increase operating radius of the F-35s.”

          • “would” “will”

            And this is not a quote from a navy source, it’s the prose written by the reporter, so it’s his interpretation of what these developments mean.

            Point me to the quote from a RN officer/ spokesperson where they say talk about operating F18s or Rafales using these…

          • Nope I can’t do that as it is written by an unofficial site, but it has a habit of being very near the truth.
            And it does say it’s their Analysis right at the top next to the date.

            So if you are a Scientist as you claim. You will understand that by asking for the Conclusion when we are still at the Observation and Theorising stage of the Scientific Method is a bit of a stretch.
            But we have asked for proposals for both Cats and Traps that is a matter of record and you can look up 1SL comments which back that up.

            Just think for a second if you were fitting even the limited CATS and TRAPS (25 K kg CAT & 21 K kg Trap) just for UAV you would fit / mark out an angled deck for overshoots or wave ons. Otherwise you have to clear the entire flight deck every time you want to land.
            Given that work and fitting any Traps involves opening up the deck it would be ludicrous not to fit a heavier AAG one. In fact as the only ones in production in the west are AAG what else can you fit ?
            And if you do that you have a fully STOBAR capable carrier, but as we have F35B we can only land as we do now. But it is an option for others or future Aircraft.

            Personally iI was really surprised that their Analysis pretty well matched mine from last night. But you didn’t like that either 🤔
            Hang on it could be Plagiarism 🤣

            But as it is MOD they will probably buy some weather balloons instead !

          • I asked for an evidence, not a “conclusion”, as you claimed. And you failed to provide anything other than your theory that –
            “involves opening up the deck it would be ludicrous not to fit a heavier AAG one”

            Fact is the RFI was issued in 2021 for cats and traps for the launch and recovery methods for DRONES and NOT for the launching of manned aircraft. This was emphasised by the specification of weights for these.

          • Great we get to the crux of the issue based on what we know as certifiable facts.
            We have issued an RFI with certain limited parameters for UAV only.
            But at present there is exactly only 1 Trap system being built in the Western World and that exceeds those specs by a very comfortable margin.
            Ergo unless you want to spec, design and produce a single use product with an inferior spec with zero export market your logical choice is AAG.
            And that by default gives you a STOBAR carrier.

            It’s called a 1 horse race as there is no other viable alternative.

          • “CURRENTLY only one” my emphasis.
            And we’ve seen the issues with THAT system played out on the USS Ford…
            I would say a cat meeting the required spec and more reliable than EMALS would not be “inferior” as you suggest.

            There was at least one alternative being developed to GA’s EMALS, after all linear induction motors are nothing new – I rode a rollercoaster powered by one last summer.

            Even if an alternative supplier was not found, any EMALS installed, it would be configured with a smaller energy storage system as the max launch weight would be smaller for drones. (This is assuming QE could generate the extra electricity quickly enough to charge the EMALS energy storage system within a reasonable time – the Ford class has 2 nuclear reactors to generate the electricity for this.
            Even if the QE can generate the electricity for drone launches fast enough, there’s no guarantee it could generate the larger electrical burden for manned aircraft launches.)

          • Just to highlight, the QE class with its two MT30s and diesel gensets were designed to generate sufficient current to operate two electric catapults concurrently, along with all the other electrical demand requirements,

          • That’s good news to hear. The RN has done a lot of future proofing with its recent vessels, something that often gets overlooked.

            However the US still can’t get the EMALS on Ford to work reliably after 6 years though, so it’s doesn’t bode well for our drone catapults…

          • Although the MacTaggart Scott system is a little outdated, it wouldn’t need a complete redesign as you suggest. It probably would be easier to bring to product stage than EMKIT, which it seems we’ve reevaluating too (Naval News).

          • Not really it wouldn’t be fit for the stated purpose. The base reason for going to the AAG ratter than a conventional catapult was so it could land UAV as well as conventional manned aircraft.
            The new system moves away from Hydraulic arresting to a combination of water turbines and induction motors. It has far finer control of the arresting force.
            Apparently it is one of the few bits on Ford which have really worked well.

          • Err same with the US marines on QE, you deploy with what you need and handlers. It has been done before and given that France is only going to have 1 carrier I suspect they’d be interested.

          • USMC operating F35Bs alongside our F35Bs. Totally different game operating different aircraft types using cats and traps while we’re using F35Bs.
            France might be interested, but for us the USMC are more compatible partners.

      • A drone AEW asset is tricky. The radar suite by it’s nature requires high electrical power generation. I think even without lugging equipment for a manned payload the UAV would still need to be pretty large.

      • As the new Navy Lookout article points out, the issue with a rotary-wing solution is that it wouldn’t be suitable for ballistic missile detection.
        In which case the Mojave may be the best solution (if it has the lift and power capability), otherwise a tilt-rotar.

        • It doesn’t need to. The ship is best placed for detecting and then tracking ballistic missiles. This is because it can carry a larger antenna. Plus has the generating capacity for much higher power outputs.

          Airborne radar is best placed at extending the horizon.

      • As a one for one replacement of Crowsnest, possibly. It is too small to carry a decent long range radar. At best it can replicate what Crowsnest can achieve. However, if you networked four of these together, then that’s worth discussing.

      • I believe GA are working on AEW pods for the MQ-9B rather than Mojave and possibly trying to get NATO adoption. With Mojave being a stepping stone to STOL Protector for the RN, it’s certainly a possible route.

    • I’ve just read this article. Very good. I brought up the cats and traps element yesterday but our resident Mr. Angry told me I was getting😉 hysterical. Hey ho.

      • If you bothered to look at the deck markings on the slides they mark out the catapult launch distances for Vixen, Stingray, Vampire and not F18 or Rafales. But if you want to continue you’re usual arithmetic mistakes of 2+2=89 then 🤷🏻‍♂️

    • I’m not sure it would make much sense. How would they generate sufficient aircrew to do that? Where would the ground crew and maintainers come from? Surely it’s better to have the AAC Sqn dedicated to maritime AH as there is now, which pulls on the same pool of aircrew, maintainers etc as the rest of the AH force.

      It’s the same really as dedicating 29Cdo RA to the Bde, you don’t need or want Bootnecks doing that job. Leave them to what they are good at. Cross Dressing and running up cliffs.

      • My comment may be considered as heresy in the upper echelons but I’m not convinced Joint Forces work; for both the Harrier force and the F-35Bs it appears that complete control is handed over to the RAF. The FAA has lost all of its autonomy. I think the RMs only have four Wildcat AH1s so my proposal of upgrading the weapon fit is perhaps irrelevant unless more AH1s were build which I guess is extremely unlikely.

        • 847 NAS, while a FAA unit, has Lynx Wildcat from the pooled 34 that went to 1 Regiment AAC. Those few cabs support 2 AAC Sqns, the OCU, and 847, so unsure what the Sqn has on a daily basis.

          As for wider FAA autonomy, the Maritime Aviation Force – that is the Wildcat HMA2 fleet and Merlin HM2 fleets, is under RN control.

          The CHF – Commando Helicopter Force – that is the Merlins of 845 and 846 NAS with 847 NAS, is a part of the JHC, a tri service formation answering to the army primarily, but with a 2* ( or is it a 1* now?) as ComJHC whose position rotates between the 3 services.

          JF Lightning is staffed by a mix of RAF and RN personnel. I understand the F35s themselves are “owned” by the RAF, but I might be wrong on that.

          One of our posters, Robert Blay, served with the earlier JF Harrier so will be able to comment on its effectiveness.

          I would like the F35B to be an all FAA owned fleet but in the real world of limited budgets that is not possible.

          Wider joint forces, most usually under Strategic Command and comprising many areas, have worked fine as far as I’m aware. for many many years, so I don’t see the problem with “purple” forces myself.

          Some of our formations are not only tri UK but tri US at the same time, and are effective.

  3. Good thing to keep the options on how to use attack helicopters.
    I wish the navy could get a new ship for the commando role instead of Argus. Keep her as is.

      • Because it was clapped out, design life of 20 years, built to commercial not naval standards, obsolete machinery no-long manufactured. At £84m the RN got a very good price for her.

        • Warships IFR did a really good write up about the Brazilian navy and interviewed their naval chief. They love the Atlantico and expect to operate her for at least the next 15 years. So although the RN got £89 million for her that’s a bargain for a vessel of her capabilities and 15 years service life.

      • Sold at a bargain price to Brazilian navy, who love Atlantico and planned to retain her for next 15+ years. Yet I thought she was in a poor material state, seems not.
        The RN does need a compact helicopter carrier for littoral warfare and as an auxiliary ASW command carrier.

        • Of course they’re going to say that, it’s their flagship. How much of those 15 years will be alongside while they try and find replacement spare parts that haven’t been manufactured in over a decade. You might not have noticed, but the RN has exacting standards for the safety of its crews.

          The RN doesn’t think so, and they’re the experts.

    • Merlin HM2 is the ASW benchmark. We really need to be thinking about developing its replacement with solution other than buying MH 60R

      • Or join the Poles who have ordered 22 AW101 for their army and have taken delivery of 4 for the navy. Why go American when we have a great Helicopter that can be upgraded. Just think about this the US develops new versions of existing aircraft and it saves time and money. We nearly always design a new Super Dooper replacement, result low numbers, high prices and we never learn.

        • “We nearly always design a new Super Dooper replacement, result low numbers, high prices and we never learn.”

          Of course mate. The MoD budget is to a large extent to fund the fat cat MIC, keeping Britain’s arms industry ticking along. It is necessary, but so is providing the military with sufficient kit at the right prices.

          The result is a military that gets smaller and smaller, but with top notch assets in many areas which still give us, and NATO the advantage.

          It is a balance, and I’d like to see more OTS myself to provide mass in certain areas only.

          • So we spent money on designing a decent Helicopter which we can build here and rather than update it we buy a U.S. chopper which is more limited and even older.
            We never seem to just develop what works well and improve it. The exception to that is of course Challenger CR2 / 3. And my theory on this was someone got arsey about the British Army driving around Salisbury plain in a Panzer 🤣

            TGIF

          • The bit that gets me down and makes my blood boil is that roughly we are on economic par with France and have spent a bit more on defence in terms of GDP over the last 10 years.
            But France is virtually 100% armed with its own Weapons, protects its own industry and actively promotes exports.
            And they have just decided to increase their Defence Budget over the next 7 years to above ours.
            IMHO the only logical explanation is that we have successive Governments that are negligent and MOD procurement are genetically incompetent.

            Sunday so finished Gardening, off for a pint but felt like a rant 1st. 😉

        • Agree. Merlin’s is the best in the game. So just order some more. The RN does need 6-10 more Merlin’s/AW101s just to make up its order of battle and sanitise access routes to major naval ports. Additionally at least 6 would be lost to ASW warfare because of crows nest commitments to strike carrier airwing. Correct me if I’m wrong here but a crows nest equipped merlin can’t simultaneously perform the ASW role?

          • Agree. Just increase Merlin ASW numbers. Wiki says the FAA have 30 in service out of a total of 44. Anyone know if this is correct?

          • I believe so, yes.

            2 were written off, leaving 42.

            I understand 11 HM1 were not upgraded to HM2 standard. Yes, I know that’s 31, so unsure about the odd one out to get to 30, assume a 3rd was lost?

            Those HM1s were long discussed here over the years, hoping that they might also get upgraded to allow them to be dedicated ASCS Crowsnest cabs with 849 NAS, freeing the other Merlin for ASW. Would have been handy, even though the Merlin can switch between the roles as needed apparently.

            Seems they were cannibalized for spares as Christmas Trees, according to some knowledgeable RN posters here.

            So that hope has gone, sadly. Assume they’re now at Sultan in the RNSAE, or at SOFDO, or fire hulks at Predannak, who knows?

          • Thx. If Merlins are still being made for Poland there must surely be a manufacturing / upgrade / repair path of some sort to another half dozen say for the RN. Infinitely better than Wildcat plus dipping sonar.

          • Sounds sensible; a Merlin HM3? Could we interest Italy, japan and S Korea in Merlin Crowsnest?

          • What I don’t understand; perhaps someone can explain: is to what degree is the effectiveness of Merlin ASW is dependent on having a T23 level of quiet initial detection ( compared for example to an unquieted T31). Would we be wasting our money upgrading those Merlins?

          • 30 of the 44 HM1s were upgraded to HM2s. I think there are 7 or 8 unconverted HM1s in storage somewhere.

            I understand that all 30 HM2s are to be made capable of receiving the Crowsnest outfit so that the 10 Crowsnest systems can be fitted to any of the 30 airframes.

            Pretty sure the ASW suite would be removed to create the necessary space and minimise the All Up Weight.

          • “30 of the 44 HM1s were upgraded to HM2s.”
            Yes, as I outlined above.

            “I think there are 7 or 8 unconverted HM1s in storage somewhere.”
            Again, as I mentioned above, I don’t think they are in any state to be converted now. At least, according to some RN posters here.

            “are to be made capable of receiving the Crowsnest outfit “

            Yes, there are no dedicated Merlin, the system is fitted as required. 👍

  5. Ok just a quick one… “Usually operating as a hospital ship”. Isn’t that iffy? Either designate it a hospital ship or a warship. Even using the ambiguity to military advantage seems morally poor. Build or buy a proper ship for the job.

    • It’s not a hospital ship never has been. there is no moral ambiguity, it’s a role 4 primary casualty receiving ship, classed as a military vessel. A hospital ship is a totally different things and have set rules about being white and not having any guns.

      • I stand corrected. I went by the wording of the article that said “RFA Argus, usually operating as a sort of ‘hospital ship’”. In which case to me would be a problem. But hey when limited in word count, an article might slightly mislead a reader not versed in the rules of war or Navy policy. Carry on correcting by all means, it keeps our knowledge up and I take no offence.

    • There is a lot of black propaganda and psyops going on from both sides involved in the Ukraine war. I would suggest that if the Russians had shot down any Storm Shadows they would have filled the worlds media with pics of debris, serial numbers etc and descriptions of how good their air defence systems are.

      • Agreed, Russia said a similar thing following the strikes against Syrian chemical production and storage sites. Along with a number of airfield led used to deliver these weapons.

        Russia said most were shot down. Yet satellite imagery showed all the designated targets were taken out.

    • Storm Shadow is going to be flying in at around 150ft/30m height.
      Any pictures of ivans “much vaunted AAW systems” firing missiles into the wild blue yonder to hit something at 1500+ feet is pretty much bollocks.

      • Scalp/ Storm Shadow apparently has an all aspect fairly low radar signature, low heat signature, it’s flying low and coming in from any point of the compass in a target rich environment, so you don’t know where to place your AAW assets….

        Add to this the ace in the pack, NATO targeting intelligence in all its forms.

        Result, they are virtually all getting through to their high value targets….

        I hope we gift them a few hundred, the French gift the same number of Scalp and Ivan’s in for a very bad time of it indeed.

  8. Is it me or does it feel like a complete waste of time spending huge amounts of money converting argus, when she will is on her last legs and will almost certainly be cut from the fleet in a couple of years when the maintance costs raise. Wouldn’t the money be better spent buying and converting a new commercial ship.

      • That would be very expensive as they would need to be built to miltiary grade (which ironically for a platform that is designed to operate near shore the need for that is way higher). Buying a commercial platform like argus was originally based on, wouldn’t cost much and then the conversation costs should be similar to argus, althoufh could be a little more as argus already has some conversations that can be carried over. Although you would think those costs would be outweighed by the much longer service life and lower maintance costs of a newer vessel.

      • Well I see no sense in regenerating H&W just for 3 supply ships. With 2 carriers that are solely dependant on Rosyth not even we are stupid enough to do another large build there. 🤞🏻

      • Hi Andrew, friends of mine served on the Invisible class for short periods in the 2000’s, they were knackered then!

        Keeping one running on to present day would require regular extremely expensive refits.

        Nothing that new engines and a new hull couldn’t put right of course, a Triggers broom if you will🤣

        That, plus the running / manning requirements would have been ‘far’ above the RN’s ability to sustain today with its other assets to run.

  9. HMS queen Elizabeth Il, f35B lightning II, queen Elizabeth Il, iloveyou, hello united kingdom, thanks you, the Long live the King charles lll no queen, f22 raptor, OK

  10. President queen Elizabeth Il, f16 fighting falcon, Long live the King charles lll no, queen, president, Ukraine, OK

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here