MV-22 Osprey aircraft have conducted night landing qualification trials onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth.

It is understood that 617 Squadron will also embark on HMS Queen Elizabeth for the first time for this deployment.

The jets will conduct Operational Tests, alongside 17 Test and Evaluation Squadron, onboard the carrier in the USA during the WESTLANT 19 deployment, proving their capability at sea.

The MoD say that this is vital step on the path to the first Carrier Strike Deployment planned for 2021.

Admiral Tony Radakin CB ADC, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff, said:

“Our aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth will return to the East Coast of the United States to conduct Operational Trials with our Lightning Force, taking this 5th generation capability to the next level as they prove their ability to operate from the sea.

For decades to come, this exciting new combination of aircraft carriers and F35B Lightnings will provide a potent, globally deployable carrier strike capability, a powerful conventional deterrent and the centrepiece of our country’s expeditionary forces.”

Recently, the 18th F-35B for the UK was delivered. Numbers right now are exactly where they’re expected to be and inline with the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review.

2 F-35B in LRIP run 3, 1 F-35B in LRIP run 4, 1 F-35B in LRIP run 7, 4 F-35B in LRIP run 8, 6 F-35B in LRIP run 9, 3 F-35B in LRIP run 10, 2 F-35B in LRIP run 11, 2 F-35B in LRIP run 12, 6 F-35B in LRIP run 13, 8 F-35B in LRIP run 14 and 7 F-35B in LRIP run 15. This brings us to 42 in 2023. The next run brings us to the total of the first batch of aircraft, 48.

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

100 COMMENTS

  1. More training with the Osprey hmm? Is this in some anticipation of the UK acquiring some? Or is it more like, when we embark USMC F35b’s they will perhaps have US Osprey’s along with them. Like an airstrip on loan etc.
    Curious
    M@

    • The USN will also be using CMV-22 as their new COD platform to replace the C-2 Greyhound.
      Zero chance of the UK acquiring any before 2030 unless there is a significant and sustained increase in the defence budget. The production line is likely to close before then.

    • The Osprey is nearly out of production orders so the line will likely close soon.As we have a defence black hole no chance we will order as they are not cheap and having a small number of unique aircraft is a very expensive operating cost burden.The best chance would be to lease some from the U.S. marines if they have some to spare.

    • I doubt the MOD can afford any. However they have greater endurance, range and speed than our Merlins and would be able to carry a much improved AEW fit that would make our Carrier Air Wing far more effective. On top of that they would be able to perform the transport role and can carry an entire F35 engine.

      Oh well…

      • The 5t RAS kit was made that big to manage an F35 engine. I wonder how often that task will be needed? Wouldn’t it have been easier to just keep a few spare engines on the carrier itself, or just have a Chinook nearby? I think even a stripped out mimimum fuel Merlin at sea level can lift 5t.

      • It’s great that it can carry an f35 engine but our carriers can carry what they need and we only have one F35b Base so no need to move engines around. Couldn’t a chinook carry an f35 Engine underslung if we needed one transported to the carrier in a hurry.

      • Not sure they have the greatest endurance or even performance in hover… would make hunting with a dipping sonar rather less practical.

        Cost of an extra aircraft type is significant.

        • The Chinook can carry the engine internally. It has a published lift (in the hover) capacity of 11 tons although they do exceed this.

    • Can’t understand the logic in building huge ships like this that you can’t afford to properly equip. They are just great big phallic symbols…a big dick that has brewers droop!

      • Hmmm, there were many who would have gone for conventional carriers with the FA18 for the FAA.

        Cheaper. Might have afforded Osprey too then.

        But not the game changer that is F35.

        What do you choose?

        • For me, the The carriers as they are and that super little 5th gen ISTAR/weapons platform game changer the F35! Will we get 138, never, do we need 138, prob not. Minimum of 72 would be nice, to enable a 2 Sqn airwing, a third Sqn on land, an OCU and a pool of airframes to rotate through the fleet.

        • I think STOVL was the way to go Daniele, while conventional carriers and air groups ‘might’ be cheaper in the short term, the cost and difficulty of keeping a conventional carrier group trained and fully carrier qualified is prohibitive, especially with a small carrier force.

          Our STOVL carriers will offer levels of operational fast jet availability that France can only dream of with their solitary CdG Carrier.

          On a wider note, I wonder if we will end up with operational cooperation/synchronisation with French carrier strike, as was once proposed?

          • And the sortie rate of the F35, on the QE is higher than a corresponding number of airframes on the CDG. As for the French, you will never see me slagging them off as over the last 5 years they have been stalwarts in taking the fight to the various scum bag terrorist around the world. They are currently well up for a ruck, and I reckon we will be working more with the French in the carrier deployments, be it both taking it in turns to provide the carrier, and escorts to each other.

          • I have to agree Airborne, EU deadlock aside, the UK and France can and do work together and make a very effective combined force on many levels.

            The French government might make Defence industrial overtures towards Germany these days, but those potential future French owned Franco German products will be operating with the British, while the German versions gather dust in Germany…..

            The sad thing is the once promising Anglo French defence industrial collaboration seems to be dead in the water….

      • the solution is to increase the defence budget not to avoid proper equipment. in 1991 we had “options for change” which started the decline of defence expenditure based on end of the cold War. all that actually happened was that the threat had changed, not disappeared. Roll on 2019 and the world is just as if not more dangerous than during the 1980s yet for some reason we are unable to quickly increase – as we did decrease – our defence budget. I’m not talking a big increase, just going to 2.5% would make a big difference and afford these big todgers. I’m not proposing we need powerful strike carriers, but we do need a larger more capable RN with some kind of credible fixed wing capability. do they need to be 65,000 tons – probably not – but at least 2 of them and at least as big as the invincibles.

    • No you Brits do fine getting into your own fights. Right now hmsE2 is just a training platform for yourselves and our marines while it’s in the neighborhood. You guys fly onto our wasp class while training with our marines in NATO exercises.

    • Probably for USMC when embarked, it would be a good capability if we had some for carriers duties but is it worth all the extra cost.

  2. The USMC will probably bring along some Osprey when they deploy on the QE with their F35’s. Hence the need for the quals.

    Cheers!

    • I wonder if it needs a longer runway (and/or traps) than our QE class. Would love to see more QE capable designs over the next few years
      M@

      • Unfortunately due to its weight when full, the engine hasn’t the thrust for a ramp take-off. It will need a catapult launch. It lands like a conventional carrier aircraft using a hook to catch the wire.

  4. So, it seems that 617 SQN did not embark on QE whilst in UK waters and that they will fly out. Based on the fact that QE is currently off the North American eastern seaboard somewhere, will 617 fly DIRECTLY to the ship or via a US airfield? Also, how many 617 aircraft will actually deploy?

    • I believe they are referring to the 6 UK Airframes in the USA which will be ’embarked ‘ under the 617 Banner and ferried back to the UK on QE

    • I think they’re heading to a US marine base first can’t remember the name, and there will be 7 British F35s involved in Westlant 19 but I’m not sure if that includes any of the training F35s in the US.

    • To an airfield first. You don’t want to be performing your first landing on a ship after hours in the air on a transatlantic trail.

      At least 7 is the figure to date, with 4-5 from the USMC. Might be some of the ITF birds as well.

    • Not really a USMC ‘main airwing’ its going to be one USMC F-35B squadron and 617 squadron (12 aircraft each – 24 in total) on QNLZ’s first deployment, as we will not have got 809 squadron fully formed up and qualified before next year and the OCU and Test and Trials squadrons will need to work with POW. There will also be a squadron of FAA ASW and AEW Merlins and a squadron of Merlin HC4s for COD/C-SAR and to work with Royal Marines. Great if some USMC MV-22s are also added as tankers and for longer range transport. Hopefully we will be persuaded to get some of our own.

    • I don’t think it’s Necessarily a bad thing at the moment & cats and traps can be installed later. The F35B can also fly from a FOB & brings unique capabilities like rolling landings. You sink a carrier -you destroy its air wing. But that’s not the case with the QE & F35B combination. I feel this is exactly the aircraft we need to replace the harrier.

      • Don’t get me wrong I am happy with the carriers and the planes (as much as the next armchair admiral) its just a lingering worry.

      • Fact is had we kept a conventional CVA after the Previous Ark Royal, the Argentines wouldn’t have dared invade the Falklands. Invincibles/Hermes & the Harriers did a grand job, but it would’ve been easier had we kept Phantoms & Buccaneers, not to mention Gannet AEW, which was sorely missed.

        I hope the QEs get a SAM system installed to improve survivability from air & anti-ship missile attack. Phalanxes are a last ditch defence & the USN has her Nimiitz/Ford/America class carriers equipped with Phalanx, RAM & ESSM. They also have far better numbers to provide escort coverage, while we have the thinnest “red line” since the dark ages.

      • And refueling tankers solve that disadvantage of which the US has hundreds we can use, the American marines F35bs must take of with less fuel than British jets due to no ski ramp so would they almost always need refueling during longish missions then?

      • Range is important during the Falklands war the Argentines were able to track ships using Hercs and Learjets that Harriers could not get at.

        • And Sea Harriers back then only had short range sidewinders and an antique radar. The F35B has much greater range on internal fuel alone compared to a Harrier GR9 with large tanks fitted, plus a hugely powerful active electronically scanned array radar, and ram jet powered Meteor long range air air missiles. No contest.

          • Again back to my main point. The carriers have a 50 year life. Restricting to STOVL concerns me a tad. With cat and trap you could have STOVL too. Without you have only one option.

          • Do the carriers have enough steam to run a conventional catapult. Even if the magnetic catapult works, does the QE generate enough electricity?

            Its been widely reported that VTOL is an efficient way to launch the F35. Why waste money? As a matter of interest is there any mileage in removing the fan for dedicated RAF aircraft? Save weight, add extra fuel, munitions.?

          • That’s another point: the RN won’t be able to use planes like Greyhounds to replenish. It will be stuck with helos unless we get tiltrotors.

          • Due to the diameter of the fan, the fuselage has been widened behind the cockpit. So removing the fan/gearbox/driveshaft will have no dramatic effect to increase the aircraft’s speed.
            However, if you did remove it, you will need to re-trim the aircraft, as it’s center of gravity will be way out with a large aft moment. The best method would be a replacement fuel tank which feeds the engine directly and then all the remaining fuel tanks feed it. This would be to ensure that the missing mass of the fan assembly was replicated by using fuel.
            However, you would then run into issues when the fuel reaches a critical level. If you start using the fuel that’s needed to balance the CoG, your aircraft’s trim will start getting out of shape I.e. getting tail heavy. So in reality it would be a non-starter as the fuel wouldn’t be useable.
            By keeping the fan assembly, the aircraft is not limited to using runways, just like in the old Harrier days. It gives you more flexibility on how and where the aircraft is operated.

            The ship’s engines do not generate steam, the MT30s are purely large gas turbines. One of the ship’s prototype designs had an angled deck with EMALS catapults. So in theory it shouldn’t need any extra power generation, as the prototype used the same current engine configuration.

          • Thanks for the points. I would imagine there would have to be some issues with the balance of the weight. There is not much to add to issue. My only remaining thought is that some power generating “pod” might replace the fan for some laser weapon… But that’s a bit SF really.

    • I’ve posted the below before to all who think CATOBAR is the ideal though…it’s worth repeating…
      The point around being able to operate less types of planes holds less and less water by the day.
      Right now there are a grand total of 4 types of aircraft in production that use CATOBAR systems. They are:
      Rafale (France)
      F-18E/F/G (US)
      F-35C (US)
      E-2D (US)
      And, errrr…..thats it. The only other possible aircraft is the unmanned MQ-25 which is on the drawing board, and will be procured in limited numbers from 2025 onwards. Nothing else is on the horizon.
      Of the remaining already operational CATOBAR aircraft the EA-6B and F-18 A/B/C/D have been retired from shipborne operations, the S-3 is long gone (fixed wing ASW has been gone for an age) and the C-2 Greyhound is being replaced by the CMV-22 Osprey in the Carrier Onboard Delivery role. Which will of course be able to operate from a STOVL carrier like QE.
      3 of the above 4 aircraft in production (the Rafale, F-18E/F and F-35C) do roughly the same job (fighter bomber). F-35B is clearly superior to Rafale and F-18E/F. It’s also the same as the F-35C with only a marginal reduction in range. In fact the UK’s F-35B will be a better fighter than either of those 3 due to its LO characteristics and Meteor and Asraam missiles (F-35C’s Amraam and AIM-9X aren’t in the same league).
      There is also the EA-18G (an F-18 variant). But if that capability is required it has been mooted that the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) carried by the EA-18G could be carried by F-35. In reality the capability isn’t as necessary when all of your aircraft are LO, rather than a mixed group that the USN will operate (not that LO aircraft couldn’t do with some jamming support, they just don’t need it as much).
      So essentially, what it comes down to is the E-2D Hawkeye.
      E-2D’s cost around $250m each. The UK would need at least 12 to equip both carriers, do training, maintenance and have an attrition replacement. Thats $3bn right there. With shorebased support, training packages, spares, maintenance contract its more like $5bn. And thats before we get to the increased manning and lifetime costs.
      To run a CATOBAR based CVF you’d need at least 3 (probably 4) sets of EMALS and arrestor gear. 1 for each carrier, 1 for a shorebased training facility and 1 spare. Thats at least $2-3bn outlay. Those systems will also need lots more people to run then and maintain them. That would double the cost over the lifetime at a minimum to at least $4bn.
      The question then is if you think getting E-2D is worth at least $10bn….and thats more than both carriers cost….together.
      Personally in an age where persistent UAV support is almost here (think lots of Airbus/QinetiQ Zephyrs overhead at $4m a pop) I think it would be an enormous waste, particularly when Crowsnest will deliver a decent capability for far less. If you wanted to push the boat out cost wise in a few years the V-247 Tiltrotor being developed in the US could carry a radar system and data link to the carrier. It could in fact carry it higher and far, far further than an E-2D (15 hour mission duration).
      STOVL carriers also have much safer, faster launch cycles than STOBAR. They can also conduct air ops in worse weather conditions. The disadvantages have mostly gone now, weapon bring back will be fine with the F-35B and SRVL, at least comparable with any current CATOBAR fighter. The range issue is a lot closer than most people think as CATOBAR aircraft use far more fuel on launch and recovery, and have to retain a larger reserve for Bolter situations. In practically all situations the real range of an F-35C will be the same as a F-35B.
      The only other disadvantages to the F-35B are the increased complexity and cost, but balanced against the CATOBAR costs they’re actually cheaper. And the reduced size of the internal weapon bays. The F-35B has smaller bays than the F-35A or C. This doesn’t matter to the UK as all of the UK weapons will fit in the B’s bays or would not fit in the A or C’s bay if they were ever cleared for F-35 use (think Storm Shadow missile). In reality UK F-35B’s will use the gun pod, Asraam & Asraam CSP, Amraam D, Meteor, Paveway IV and SPEAR. All of which will fit internally or are cleared for use of the outer pylons (Asraam). The only other UK A2G stores are EPWIII, Storm Shadow and Brimstone 2 (Paveway II leaves service with Tornado). None of these is envisaged to be carried by F-35. If they were needed they could be cleared via a test campaign for the wing pylons.
      It’s worthwhile noting that the UK has no plans for an anti ship missile to be carried by F-35B. If that changes it would likely be the JSM as an off the shelf buy or waiting for the future UK/France missile in the 2030+ timeframe. Storm Shadow is unlikely to be integrated as it currently stands to be withdrawn c2030 (unless it gets a re-life). Even if it did, its range means that external carry is not a problem as it can be launched far outside the range of any AD system (the JSM range is 300 miles with a Hi-Hi-Lo attack profile, c120 miles with Lo-Lo-Lo

      • You raise some really good points on overall costs of operating an aircraft off a carrier. We are very lucky we did not go down the EMALS route, as we would have truly had a carrier that couldn’t launch any fixed wing aircraft. The Ford class still cannot launch the F35C, only E2D and F18s. Not much use to us, as we would have bought the F35Cs.
        I’ve mentioned before about the USMC MUX requirement. Initially they wanted an armed UAV that could support troops on the first and secondary stages of amphibious ops, i.e. on to the beach and supporting the beach head. This has all changed, as they’ve realised their main requirement is situational awareness and communications. They believe that GPS and communications satellites will be compromised in a future peer vs peer conflict, but also the reliance of a friendly E2D cannot be guaranteed. The Bell V247 Vigilent was designed to meet the USMC needs for close air support. However, it has the generation capacity to power a decent search radar and also be a Link-16 and comm’s node. It has been designed to fit in the same footprint as a Blackhawk/Seahawk with a folding wing and rotors. Therefore it could also be used from a destroyer!
        The USMC has cancelled all major upgrades to its F18 fleet, to prioritise funding for the MUX program. This is the RN’s best near term option to replace the Merlin/Crowsnest combination. The USMC have requesting a low probability of intercept radar, that can be used for ground mapping and target reconnaissance. It must also be able to provide fleet airborne early warning. One of the candidates is a development of the F35’s APG-81.

        With regards to the RN/RAF’s decision not have an anti-ship missile for our F35Bs. I’m not sure if that’s completely true. Yes we won’t be paying for integration costs. But both Japan and Australia are paying for the integration of NSN/JSM. Japan are also requesting a modification to the NSM, so it can fit in the bay of the F35B. If Japan and Australia stump up the integration fees, we wont have to, as all the work will have been done by them. By comparison we are paying for the integration of Spear3, Meteor and ASRAAM. Therefor Japan wont have to pay for Meteor and Australia wont have to pay for ASRAAM. So the best we can say is wait and see!

        • Don’t forget the UK was at one point going to develop its own electromagnetic launch system called EMCAT. By all accounts it worked and avoided the issues that the US have encountered with EMALS (the principle was the same but the engineering was a little more elegant). Lots of trials were undertaken with a sub-scale system called EMKIT by Converteam.

          The real issue would have come with the Advanced Arrestor Gear (AAG) that the US developed to use with EMALS. As far as I am aware it was likely the UK was going to use the US system, which has caused almost as many issues as EMALS.

          NSM isn’t getting integrated. It’s a surface launched only weapon. The air launched version (which is a different shape, size and with other capabilities) is JSM. The integration of JSM with F-35 is being done for the Norwegians. It was part of the deal for their adoption of the F-35. The US is partially funding it as well. The Australians were looking to integrate JSM with the P-8 Poseidon. That has gone a little quiet recently. But both Japan and the Australians are buying the JSM for F-35 as well, so will benefit from the Norgies being smart in the procurement phase.

          Meteor is tricky as the Japanese haven’t bought it, but are doing a development with the UK to add an AESA seeker to Meteor under the JNAAM programme. This might need additional integration work. But the sensible thing for the UK to do would be to slow our buy of Meteor down and only integrate the JNAAM AESA version with F-35 in 2025ish rather than the normal Meteor variant (which could be reserved for Typhoon T2 and T3). The timings work as long as the JNAAAM remains on track as Meteor isn’t likely to get integrated until then anyway. We’re getting c200 Amraam D to cover the gap and Amraam C-5 are still around for the Typhoon T1’s.

          The Australians like Asraam, but…all the indications are that they will be using AIM-9X with F-35, atleast initially. They’ve placed an order for it a while ago, ostensibly for their F-18E/F/G aircraft (as Asraam is not integrated to SuperHornet, only legacy Hornet). The numbers weren’t huge and its unclear what the Australian intention is with their existing Asraam stockpile. The interesting decision will come as their F-35 fleet grows, their legacy Hornet fleet decreases and Asraam CSP arrives. It remains to be seen if they will go for that, hopefully they will as AIM-9X doesn’t even match legacy Asraam’s range. But not Australian F-35 has yet been seen with Asraam, even though its cleared for use with F-35.

          • Sorry, but I’ve accidently flagged your comment and not sure if I can unflag it. Sorry to all concerned. I’m grateful for your comment in fact.

          • Australia is funding an Australian designed passive rf seeker for JSM to make it a dual mode seeker, along with several other rather vague contributions. This was announced in 2015. Konsberg are already testing the new seeker.

      • Good answers.
        Actually a PS… The French carrier is nuclear powered and is steam powered (?) and thus ditto for the catapult. Just curious about the proposed Chinese carriers… are they VTOL or catapult. EMALS?
        Will the Chinese have problems developing their carrier activities?

        • The Chinese Kuznetsov copies are all STOBAR, their new carrier design which is supposed to be bigger than Lizzie should be having EMALS, if they can get it work.

        • Technically all nuclear carriers, with the exception of the new Gerald R Ford are ‘steam powered’. The nuclear reactors act merely as huge ‘kettles’, boiling water that is converted into motive and electrical power by steam turbines (and generators attached). Lots of steam as a by-product for steam cats is a bonus.

          The Chinese already have one major issue with the Liaoning (and its new sister ship). Using the STOBAR method they’ve been able to get a carrier capability up and running fast (which is the reason the Soviets developed it) but at the cost of hamstringing their airgroup. The J-11 onboard (a copy of the Russian SU-27/30) has the same issue the Russian’s encountered on the Kuznetsov. Without a catapult it cannot generate enough speed to be able to takeoff at a decent weight. Basically, the choice is fuel OR weapons. At most they can launch their fighters with a minimal air to air loadout and less than full fuel, a massive disadvantage.

      • If the F-35 needed a AShM, it would be easier and cheaper to make a ASh-variant of Meteor. Spear-3 will have a limited capability, and if CAMM-technology is used in ASRAAM, according to records for HMS Westminster, Sea Ceptor is a darn good makeshift capability vs. small and medium vessels.

        The ASW and AEW workloads will be taken over by something like the V-247. Can also act as a helo escort, bomb & missile & torpedo truck and numerous other tasks. Zephyr is crucial, it is the safe communications node, and a Merlin will be somewhere as a command node.

        In this world of networked assets, there is no need for a E-2.

        And then, what people tend to forget is, that F-35B isn’t the first variant, and the alphabet has more letters on offer. It will be target of DARPA development, and Israel will add technological expertise as well. Let’s say, there is a breakthrough in the next 15 years, that replaces the hub fan with something smaller and better fitting **cough.. 3D print plus bionic engineering ..cough**, they could gain the weapons bay space back and possibly fuel.

        This aircraft and its support chain is just the right choice.

    • The UK position has always had a level of ambiguity around exactly how and when it would use its nuclear deterrent. It has never been as simple as we will only use them if we are attacked with nuclear weapons first.

      After all you don’t need nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction to enact mass homicide Against another nation (just ask the Russians and Germans).

      This is why the balance of conventional v nuclear forces is so important. A nuclear power facing a catastrophic military defeat and potential destruction or loss of freedom is likely to go nuclear.

      You also have other actions that a nation may wish it’s enemies to think on balance could trigger a nuclear exchange….such as a purposeful attack against the nuclear deterrent itself….

      It’s why nuclear weapons should only ever be in the hands of secure nations with very strong militaries…and if your conventional military strength drops down to low it’s better to sacrifice some nuclear strength and re-invest……Or so I have read.

  8. Really makes no sense testing this, ahead of other actual UK stuff. It’s being tested as really the QE are seen as extensions of the USMC rather than truly UK assets.

    • that could have changed by the late 2020s. all we need is to get to a minimum of 72 F35Bs and we can equip one carrier with a large air wing and the 2nd with a hybrid wing or top it up with USMC – this would be an emergency only

    • There’s a video interview with 1SL here (https://youtu.be/Qdvxajw_vog). It’s mostly pretty abstract stuff but on the carriers he seems pretty genuine and intent that the RN carrier capability will be at heart a fully sovereign capability with non-UK assets bolted on on occasion. He also explicitly mentions 24 F-35B deployments with the ability to surge to 36 and I’m pretty sure from context that he means UK solely achieved with planes. It’s perfectly possible to dismiss this as empty rhetoric of course but I thought it interesting and encouraging that the “fully sovereign” part was emphasised quite strongly.

  9. Might be a stupid question but does anyone know if an Osprey or its follow on can refuel a F35B inflight? If yes then it could be a useful addition to the carriers they would need 8-12 of these.
    I have noticed many negitive comments about these two carriers and the amount of aircraft they can carry, yes in peace time they will have propably only 12-24 F35Bs but they are able to carry 70 aircraft if needed. These two carriers if we had them or something like them in 1982 the Falkland conflict would never have happened. Which country would want to take on 100-140 advanced combat aircraft, you need to have real b***s to do that.
    When I think of the cost, the media when speaking about the two ships the 3.1 billion Queen Elizabeth or the 3.1billion carrier or it is always the cost then the name. Look at it a diffrent way 50 pence per person per year, is that to much? For one US carrier you could get five QEs or another way the US has at a max 90 aircraft at sea and for the same price as their 90 we could get 350 aircraft at sea if we built five to equal there one. In man power needed a US carrier has a crew of 5000, with that manpower we could put three and a half carriers to sea. SO overall the QE design and cost is a good investment. In terms of maintance I suspect that the US carrier with its nuclear powerplant would need to spend more time alongside just to make sure that the reactor is ok, so a quicker turn around. Yes the QE class needs refueling so it needs a tanker, but so does the US carriers, if I need to refuel for the aircraft I might as well refuel the ship at the same time.
    Yes the QEs have drawbacks, range and weapons load of the F35Bs is the main one and the second is getting aircraft into the air, the US can launch four at a time whilst the QE one after another. However, eight or more aircraft and it looks like the overall time for launch is about the same. Also the QE has a more simple launch method meaning not so much to go wrong, whereas a US carrier has launchers that can go wrong, blast shields that can go wrong, arrestor wires that can go wrong, steam generation plants that can go wrong, electrical plants that can go wrong. You get the drift, the more that can go wrong the more it will.
    So overall the QE carrier is not a bad carrier, there is only three things that I would like to see as an improvement, a better self defence system for example Sea Ceptor 4 blocks of 8 would be useful, possible even iron dome, a crash barrier for the F35B and an aircraft that can refuel in flight the F35B. The last point is for two reasons one the weapons load could be increased as the F35B could refuel straight after launch and then they could refuel on the return leg of the strike.

    • Not a stupid question at all. The USMC have been trialing a roll-on-roll-off refuelling rig for V22. Some info is here…

      https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/04/23/the-corps-is-on-track-to-turn-the-mv-22-into-a-refueling-tanker/

      I do take all the points about how expensive V22 is, so many other calls on UK defence budget, production line coming to an end relatively soon, etc but I do wish things were different because there have also been at least concept studies done on an AEW version as well and getting the radar up 8,000 ft or so higher than Merlin can (I forget the exact difference in service ceilings) would surely be another good use of the airframe but we are where we are budget-wise I think so I very much doubt it’s going to happen.

      I do agree with you though that having onboard aar capability would be a huge plus. I guess buddy refuelling will be what is used when necessary unless there is some significant increase in budgets.

    • Yes, the CV-22s will be used as the tanker aircraft. Cobham who make the refuelling drogue assembly, have won a further contract to supply some units. Not sure if this purely for testing or part of a long lead time arrangement, they’ve only released a simple statement. However, it will be a single centre point refuel done via the rear ramp.

      About 8 years ago trials were done to convert a V22 to AEW. Again this was done with a mechanical radar bolted to the outside of the ramp. This was lowered to horizontal in flight. It was a bit of a lash up. With the ramp lowered the crew had to be on individual oxygen sets and the radar kept breaking down. I don’t know why they didn’t borrow the Sea King’s Searchwater radar as this would have been a better option?

  10. I agree with the comments that QE/PoW could do with a small number of V-22. Perhaps 5x CMV-22 + 6 MV-22, so 11 in total for FAA. Sadly there is no money & no will, while Parliament remains a shambles.

  11. Especially after the economic havoc that a no deal Brexit will likely cause – as indicated by internal government reports. I don’t see how the MODs current budget will survive – let alone start acquiring V22s and maintain their presently ambitious R&D/naval expansion plans.

    • I believe that government report was a worst case scenario plan, something which every organisation should come up with, if entering a new phase, operation or plan (such as brexit). Many people don’t think it will economic havoc, although it will certainly need a period of readjustment. I remember the doomsayers saying much the same when we didn’t join the euro. However deal or no deal (a rather crap TV programme if I remember rightly) the MOD will continue to waste prodigious amounts of money as a matter of routine, money which the military cannot afford to be without.

      • Unfortunately airborne I don’t think it is a worse case, apparently it got relabelled and it’s actually the central or expected risk assessment.

        I’ve never come across the label expected worse case before and I do risk assessment/planning and have seen lots of government risk assessments in my time.

        I’m smelling BS to be honest, yellow hammer is clearly their planning and risk mitigation document for expected level of risk.

        Not saying it’s what will happen, risk assessments by their nature are an educated guess that are designed to allow you to put a likelihood to something and therefore balance your planned actions or expectations.

        • Well it may be that we never find out as our elected reps seem to be doing whatever suits them, and not what they have been requested to do in a free and fair referendum! But as for BS, that’s the default smell over the last 3 years in parliament mate. However the one positive to come out of it, politics isn’t boring at the moment and it’s got many people sitting up and taking notice of the importance of politics, many of whom I imagine had previously no interest in the matter!

    • Before you get all misty eyed about the EU, look at the amount the European Central Bank has spent (QE) on dodgy bonds. 2.6 trillion euros & counting. If they sold them on the open market, they would lose a minimum of 700 billion euros.
      There lies trouble ahead, both sides of the Channel.

  12. I continue to wonder why some fixed wing short take off aircraft can’t operate from our carriers. At the upper end of the range, what about a Britten Norman Islander – 215m take off run, less than that with a 30kt headwind and skijump I’m sure. I’m also sure there are smaller equivalents needing less space to operate that could still offer longer range and heigher service ceilings than Merlin for a fraction of the operating costs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britten-Norman_BN-2_Islander

    That could cover a number of roles – CoD, AEW etc. and would be cheap and reliable.

    • Whilst technically that might be possible, I fear you would need balls of steel to land a Islander on the deck of queen Elisabeth. But I like the concept, maybe dig the parts out of museums & rebuild the Fairy Rotodyne -that would be ideal for resupply.

      • It would also be the best design of helicopter. Better than the Boeing/Sikorsky SB1 Defiant and the Bell V280 Valor designs. It would also be better at troop insertion than the Chinook. The rotor disc size is not compromised (Valor). Achieves maximum speed due to efficiency of offloading disc (Defiant). With a multi-balded disc can be made more efficient at lift without a limited forward speed and quieter to boot (Chinook).
        A modern day version is sadly not going to happen!

  14. Correct me if I am wrong but the USMC use the OSPREY for the Combat Search and Rescue mission. If they are flying them on and off of QE it is more likely to be for that reason than any other.

    • The current uses by the USMC are: Combat Insertion, Transport, SAR, and interim tanker starting this year.
      Eventually the tanker role is meant to be taken over by a drone from the MUX program. Likely a variant of the V-247.

  16. I know no one has done this, but is it worth asking if an osprey could utilise a ski jump? Obviously britain isn’t going to buy any, (although I think the chances have increased since Crowsnest will be out of service by 2030) for compatability since US marines are going to be semi permanently residing on the class. Might be insightful if a roro air refuling system is developed (finaly). If there is any research about this I would be delighted to hear of it. Even if it just says its impossible. Thanks 😊

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here