MV-22 Osprey aircraft have conducted night landing qualification trials onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth.
The deck is getting busier and busier ahead of #UKF35! We have once again welcomed MV-22 Osprey to our deck, with night landing qualification further expanding our capabilities with our @USNavy partners ahead of #CSG21. 845 NAS Merlin Mk4 @CdrBobBond in overwatch #WESTLANT19 pic.twitter.com/EfBEFXt5kW
— HMS Queen Elizabeth (@HMSQNLZ) September 20, 2019
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.
“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.
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 crazy how the F35b can carry 10 tons when using external points also. So a USMC captain said.
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.
Pretty much my thinking too.
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… Read more »
Options for change, or as we called it the “brown letter” job hunt.
I applied to RAF ACOS Biggin Hill in 1992 (unsuccessful.) Less than 12 pilots to be selected that year
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.
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!
Also: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/09/19/the-us-navys-new-autonomous-refueling-drone-takes-historic-first-flight/
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.
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.
Most likely ahead of embarking USMC as its main airwing
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… Read more »
It still bothers me that the QE class are restricted to STOVL fixed wing aircraft.
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.
why – it’s all we’ve had since 1979 and we’ve just gone a decade with helicopters only!
I know I know some people are never happy etc. It’s not a major gripe just a concern.
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… Read more »
Why does it bother you? There are many advantages to STOVL Carriers. The only difference between the F35B and C is range.
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… Read more »
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.
Smaller wing,lack of gun,smaller payload, smaller weapons bay,less manoeuvrable ,massively different
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… Read more »
Superb reply. That’s really illuminating
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
Guys totally of track here but I have just been reading an article on PlymouthLive written by an ex SSBN skipper. It appears that the Government has changed its policy on second strike to a potential pre-emptive strike.
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/ex-royal-navy-sub-commander-3338677
What do you think?
I think the second paragraph in that article gives you all the answers you need.
I do not believe a word of it.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
F-35 has no buddy refuelling capability. And there is none being developed either.
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… Read more »
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.
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 fear, Adrian, that you may well be right. Thanks Cameron…I hope your book is an abject failure…sales wise!
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… Read more »
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!
True, it’s like house of cards but real.
I’m glad you informed us
Please remain on hold……
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.
Interesting responses
Yet, oh so predictable…some of them just the usual claptrap! Informed opinion from those that don’t know their ripcord from their fly zipper!
Yes Adrian, interesting responses to a subject which hasn’t happened yet, therefore no one can predict what will happen, no matter what predictable claptrap is said by those who like to munch at the EU trough, and have never seen a rip cord or probably struggle with their small zipper. Intersting times ahead.
Very insightful
Please hold the line……..la la la
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.
Why not a couple of refurbed Caribou?
if i understand correctly, its not so much the take off that is the issue its the landing. However saying that i assume the take off figures quoted are not under full load, which for them to do anything useful you would need to factor in.
Ha Ha… Why not go back through back episodes of Thunderbirds. Gerry Anderson had some good designs. Don’t worry… ? I’m only being very droll. It’s a pity and a shame there is no quick easy and cheap solution.
You mean like this….NASA QSRA on USS Kitty Hawk…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_eDutgh4IU
Looks just the job!
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.
The Americans used to operate OV-10 Bronco twin turboprops from their carriers without using cats & traps.
Yes, they also landed a Hercules without arrester gear.
Used rocket assistance for take-off, damaged the deck in doing so.
That will test the thermal paint!
They didn’t use RATO/JATO on the Forrestal. All without assistance (although I bet the carrier was shifting to get enough wind over deck the first few times, the Forrestal was probably the fastest carrier ever).
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!
If V-22 production ends before the UK decides to buy how about adapting AW 609 or V-280 Valors?
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.
Is it wise to release such info ?
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 😊