A U.S. Air Force CV-22 Osprey tiltrotor has landed onboard the Kings Flagship, aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.
The U.S. Air Force say here that the CV-22 Osprey is a tiltrotor aircraft that combines the vertical takeoff, hover and vertical landing qualities of a helicopter with the long-range, fuel efficiency and speed characteristics of a turboprop aircraft.
The mission of the CV-22 is to conduct long-range infiltration, exfiltration and resupply missions for special operations forces.
Welcome to the CV-22 Osprey!
More flight deck training for various helicopters from NATO nations.
What is your favourite military helicopter? #KingsFlagship #GlobalModernReady pic.twitter.com/BCBLw6ANDL
— HMS Queen Elizabeth (@HMSQNLZ) September 26, 2023
The Royal Navy say that the aircraft carrier, crewed by up to 900 sailors, with her F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters and Merlin helicopters, will lead a mixed group of warships from various nations as they head to the Norwegian Sea and waters of northern Europe.
Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said:
“The UK leadership of this international strike group shows the strength of our commitment to working with Allies to promote security in Europe and demonstrate our resolve against any threat from potential adversaries. With both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales deployed simultaneously, the Royal Navy sends a strong message that the UK’s capability for carrier operations is among the strongest in the world.”
The first phase of the deployment will see the carrier’s F35 fighter jets taking part in Exercise Cobra Warrior, the RAF’s largest bi-annual exercise, which will see aircraft from the Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Norway, and the UK taking part in joint exercises.
The 18-day exercise will involve RAF Typhoon and F35 jets, A400M and C17 transport aircraft, and Voyager air tankers, developing interoperability alongside allied aircraft and practicing integration between fourth and fifth generation fighter aircraft across air, sea, and land.
Commodore James Blackmore, Commander of the Carrier Strike Group, said:
“It is with much eagerness that the UK Carrier Strike Group is now assembling for deployed operations – the first time the UK CSG will be under my command. This autumn’s deployment showcases the UK’s capability to operate at range from the UK and demonstrates our continued commitment to North Atlantic security.
The Carrier Strike Group is an agile and highly capable force and we are excited to be heading to the North Sea and North Atlantic along with our International Partner Nations to reinforce security across the region.”
Where did it all go wrong?
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/02/the-fairey-rotodyne-the-vertical-take-off-and-landing-airliner-time-forgot/
Well, the usual fantasy that the RN gets half a dozen CMV-22B to do long range ship to shore. Given the financial crisis, I will not hold my breath.
I agree, useful for COD, personnel transfer, long range surveillance and of course CSAR.
Although if there was a pot of money that buying more F35B would be more useful.
I would like to see us buy some for AEWC and ditch the Merlin AEW. This would much improve fleet defence.
The F35B is very good at AEWC, a reason to buy more
Given the array of drones we are acquiring it’s not as usueful as it would have been a few years ago.
I doubt both carriers will see it through the next defence review. The main justification for carriers is global reach, with UK moving its focus closer to home in the next few years its very hard to justify keeping 2 carriers to potter around a few hundred miles off our coast.
I doubt that. The carriers were ordered by a Labour government and cutting one would be a political embarrassment. More likely is a reversion to the cancelled idea of uprating POWs accommodation to support an amphibious role. That would allow the Albions to be deleted without immediate replacement. Neither Albion nor Bulwark is currently operational, partly perhaps because of crew shortages now both carriers are at sea.
What happened to the Asia-Pacific tilt and also our membership of AUKUS?
The Cons screwed the economy, highest tax take being reported on R4 this a.m.
Bluffer meanwhile, bluffed and the hot air is being exposed for what it is.
Interestingly, commentators on Kuensberg ‘state of chaos’ said that he was actually believing his own words: Hitler complex.
What will the incoming Labour Govt do? The boats are out on that one, but, this is some very astute manoeuvring by the RN to have 2 carriers on ops and in the public eye.
If only the Army could achieve effect like this.
RN and RAF are better at ‘office politics’ than the army. I remember the RAF replaced Harriers with Tornados in Afghan even though the former were better at the role and cheaper to operate, just so they could prove to politicians and the public of the utility of Tornado in modern combat and to set the pre-conditions for Harrier to be sacrificed due to the impending rule that they could only have two fast jet types (they picked Tornado and Typhoon – at the time). Army is not in the public’s eye – previously they were. The People think the… Read more »
First explain what AUKUS is
“AUKUS will focus specifically on deepening integration in defence-related science, technology, industrial bases and supply chains, with particular emphasis on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and new undersea capabilities. The first initiative of AUKUS will be to support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines and the necessary infrastructure to upkeep them,…”
Dont see it as a military alliance , UK just wants to be the Nuke Sub builder for Australia.
Duker, thanks for the post. You are right. I read more into AUKUS than it actually is. It still demonstrates US and UK interest in Australia’s ‘back yard’. I wouldn’t be surprised if it evolved into a naval/military (deterrence-centred) alliance.
By that logic we should only have Corvettes, there is no current plan that our blue water fleet will just potter around a few hundred miles off of the coast, maybe if Sunak or his ilk is still in control in a decade or so that might be the plan as part of this Country accepting its new place in the third World but in the mean time even two is barely enough to patrol the Atlantic, North, Arctic and Med surely even if one thinks we can forget about the Arabian, Indian and Pacific Seas and Oceans. And that’s… Read more »
I know that HMG has been appalling at cancelling perfectly good kit & capabilities, but it would be new levels of imbecility to cut the cariers after spending so much & training evrybody for them. No, they’ll stay until obsolete, sunk or worn out.
The US is already planning for their demise, like most first gen projects they are full of managed innate problems that even for the Americans are extremely costly to handle. Yes very capable aircraft but at great cost and the last thing we want to saddle ourselves with for the few occasions they are uniquely required. Their replacements will be much better.
I’d agree with this. Leave current order where it is, focus them on carrier work.
IF anymore money becomes available then maybe a small new tranche of Typhoon.
Then just jam everything into Tempest and hope that it comes out as good as we all hope it will be.
I heard exactly the same argument against the RAF getting C-17.
Yes. Spy just building sandcastles in the ‘sky’
Surely, it may be worth the RN considering buying four Ospreys to allow for at least one per carrier with the remaining two for training and reserve. This plane would allow for speedy delivery from ship to shore and could be fitted with anti-submarine systems, which could broaden operational envelopes.
Would cost fortunes to operate such a tiny fleet.
It isn’t like the E7 and P8 which are essentially commercial jets with a healthy airframe parts supply.
The reality is that most if it will be done with drones.
There was a very interesting statistic, published a few months back, that most of the urgent transfers to the carriers are 10kg(?) or less.
See the price quoted as $90m. If that in any way represents the individual unit cost to the US i.e. after economies of scale AND in their own currency – then lord help any other nation pondering a purchase.
On the much broader front, does further demonstrate the value of aircraft carriers as likely the ultimate deliberate FFBNW platform. Just bring on the latest iteration in air power & flexibility over 50 years, all else being equal – and keep the US ‘close enough’ to land on their own assets as often as possible.
With Caveats though. A lot of British Aircraft Carriers after the war didn’t last because they’d not been made with the growth of modern aircraft in mind. American Essex class carriers on the other hand had massive hangars (coincidence more than design, they wanted to keep aircraft spares hanging from the ceilings), so when jets came along they could be kept in service by simply reducing the size of their airwings.
Ah, funny you should mention aircraft spares above, Dern. Good lead in to another, modern concern in its own right, impinging especially on F35s (know you’re well aware). That’s Lockheed, Northrop & suppliers so restricting tools / parts access that trying to get those parts in order to keep the jets operational to anywhere near required availability rate is proving ”problematic’ – on a jet costing us £100m thereabouts. Suspect similar would hit Osprey.
Mentioned a while back, that under current security trends, we’d soon enough need a new ‘Lord Beaverbrook’, with the political backing to match.
I mean, when I referred to spares I meant they litteraly used to hang spare airframes from the ceiling so that if they lost an SBD they’d just take a fresh one down and set it up.
https://i.redd.it/kx1kv8ij82wx.jpg
Yes, that is definietly an issue, I’d term it as US protectionism, we could get around it if we could produce and maintain F-35’s without a US foot in the door, sadly the DoD is very anti that.
Cheers, Dern. Knew where you were coming from on the Essex – case of vertical thinking!
Been frustrated by commercial protectionism as a means of yet further enhancing companies already significant bottom line to the detriment, generally, of taxpayer value for money &, specifically on this site, security. So used your ‘in’ to that end.
The older you get, the more reactionary you become at what’s effectively endemic fraud. There’s a reason why there are ever wealthier individuals – & ever more states that cannot complete essential projects.
I’ve replied to both of you but because I included image links the replies are stuck in approval hell.
British carriers hangers were restricted by their armoured decks, came in handy during the war mind. Swings and roundabouts that needed a rethink post war in terms of scale to compensate.
Actually that’s a bit of a myth, Eagle and Ark Royal (and Hermes for that matter) post war both had armoured flight decks and they had hangars large enough to accomodate F-4 Phantoms.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Phantom_FG1_892_Sqn_on_HMS_Ark_Royal_%28R09%29_1972.jpg
Plus a lot had double decker hangers, which also restricted the plane size.
By the end of the war not very many had double decker hangars. It really only was the three weyrd sisters (HMS Glorious, HMS Courageous, and my personal favourite and wyerdist of the them all, HMS Furious) and HMS Unicorn that was built with them, and, my love for Furious aside, there where reasons why they where being retired at the end of the war beyond the double decker hangars. Unicorn was more modern but she never was intended as a fleet carrier and was really a floating aviation repair facility, and yes the double hangar might have just been… Read more »
Behold the madness that is the changing design of HMS Furious: From first to last: -As designed in 1915, a lightly armoured Battlecruiser that could reach 31knots, was armed with 2x18in guns, but had a 3 inch belt (by comparison HMS Hood had a 12 inch belt) -As initially operated, a hybrid battle carrier with 1x18in gun and a impossible to land on flight deck with a hangar that could somehow allegdely fit 10 aircraft https://i.imgur.com/y4FWd5A.jpeg -As made slightly more sensible with it’s guns removed, a landing platform build and two random little bridge things that are perfect for loosing… Read more »
Derp forgot about the Implacables that also had a double hangar. Ah that’s why you shouldn’t reply tired XD
Not so. The Essex class hanger height was 17 ft 6in, HMS Eagle/Ark Royal were 20 ft plus had 2 decks for hangars The UK carriers designed before WW2 and had armoured decks and sides were between 14 and 16 ft What you are thinking about is modernisation after the war . Essexes had the whole flight deck as a ‘bolt on’ to the main deck which was the hangar floor, so many were modernised with a complete new build deck, especially steam catapults and angled decks The British design had the flight deck as part of the hull, much… Read more »
Thanks some common sense at last, even if money was no concern Ospreys are hardly an ideal choice in operational terms. We don’t need another liability waiting to happen for the odd moment they would be desirable.
You forgot usually 2/3rds are grounded/unserviceable if the media is correct, that leaves 1?
First consider the USN largest helicopter below the Osprey
Its the MH60 while the RN has The Merlin with TWICE the capacity of the Seahawk.
The Osprey is a fanciful solution for something the RN doesnt have a problem
V expensive to buy, VV expensive to fly and maintain.
Bit of a death trap as well.
Agree with you Jim, its got a truly awful safety record, especially compared with other rotor craft. I get the bit about modern technology etc, but still….
Full hull loses are 13 with 50 dead plus a whole lot of minor “knocks”. Apparently it’s also a pig to maintain with USMC availability at about sixty per cent.
Yes. I had read something similar to this. Personally I think it’s something we should stay well clear of, as it’s not cheap to buy or maintain either.
Given the direction we appear to be heading, believe that ‘drones/UAVs’ are probably the way ahead for us wrt CS.
I think the two most pressing needs in this area are a AAR and AEW variants before anything else.
Yes good to hear common sense, the US are stuck with them though as I previously said they are already planning getting rid they are bad in so many ways even if on paper they have advantages. Fact is they are a flawed design which the next generation has learned from and aim to correct like not trying to tilt whole engines making for a change in flight characteristics that’s makes them so difficult to handle esp in non perfect conditions.
the US isn’t “stuck” with them. the army is buying the future lift helicopter- but the army has never operated them. they’re used by the marines and air force who don’t have plans to replace them- in fact they’re still being produced. the navy just started operating their variant of the V-22 in 2021 actively replacing the greyhounds.
the ospery is a great example of how the media hyping a few incidents 20 years ago warps people’s opinions to this day. like i said above they’re the safest rotorcraft by flight hour in the us military.
I agree. If the USMC are having problems we can well do without it. I don’t know where we re going with AEW and ASW either. On AEW we are 18/24 months behind with Crowsnest and now there is a suggestion that they’ll be retired by the end of the decade? Fairly typical I suppose. On ASW it’s down to airframes and pilots again.
To be brutally honest, Crowsnest is 10 years too late and should have been sacked off years ago. The problem is the front end of the system, the Searchwater radar. The basis of this radar have been around since the 1970’s. The issue is that it is a mechanically scanned pulse doppler radar. that has an upper and lower fairly wide angle beam. Therefore requires more filtering and signal processing to spot small stealthy targets. The RN should cut its losses and look to a new replacement AESA based radar mounted on a large UAV. And no I don’t mean… Read more »
If Stingray or similar will do the job I agree with you, as long as we don’t take twenty years getting it done. If it’s true that there is talk about retiring Crowsnest by 2030 ‘ish we need to get our a..e in gear now.
An MQ-25 sized drone (20 tons) with a top of the shop L-Band AEW is unlikely for us. Unless the USMC play with it to make it STOL or STOBAR, Stingray itself is out and I don’t think there’s anything else that will do that job. I just can’t see an 3 ton 10-11m E7 MESA L-Band antenna flying off our carriers. A half ton 4m S-Band antenna, maybe. Given that AESA is made up of lots of little antennas in the first place, it’s beyond my tech understanding as to why the overall antenna needs to be any specific… Read more »
Hi Jon, The physics behind how antennas work is very dry, so I’ll try to simplify it. In my yoof, I struggled to understand how basically an open circuit wire can be used to transmit a signal. AC electrical as well as eletcro-magnetic theory plays a big part here, so bear with me. To get the maximum transmitted gain (amplification) but also to maximise your receiver sensitivity. You need to match the antenna length to the wavelength of the signal that is either being transmitted or received. If the antenna length is not matched, part of the signal will reflect… Read more »
Thank you for that. So if I understand correctly, if there are insufficient TRMs in a particular direction you won’t get precise enough beam forming. That requirement and the larger size of the TRMs and spacing as wavelength increases mean the overall length of the antenna has to get bigger too.
So MESA has something like 32×9 TRMs and 22cm x 32 x 9 is about 7m x 2m.
Yes, that’s correct, the configuration of TRMs within the array determines the beam’s shape and narrowness. You can make the array smaller, but then the antenna gain gets smaller so there’s less transmitted power, the beam will get wider and the receiver sensitivity gets a lot worse. https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.940b6131f2f903b2e1cc7ff220a664b9?rik=WJMxv6hVy0pskw&riu=http%3a%2f%2fdefense-update.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2015%2f05%2famdr_ddg51_3_1021.jpg&ehk=sLKqVlFPsHvB5dfXHnnXvoQcsrSX1ZJ8ML8E821JFG4%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0 The above picture shows the SPY-1D radar on an USN Arleigh Burke destroyer. As you can see the array shape is octagonal, which tries to get as many TRMS around the array’s centre, thus being able to generate a fairly circular narrow beam. On the Wedgetail, the MESA antenna array configuration is… Read more »
We probably aren’t getting MQ-25 until the carriers have catapults/arrestors fitted. For all the feelers, I don’t see us going for that this decade. And neat as that conformal solution looks, we are realistically looking at two AESA underwing pods for the MQ-9B STOLs, a solution GA are known to be working on. Which reraises your wing shadow issue. We are told that MESA L-Band weighs 3 tons. Very finger in the air, S-Band will quarter the weight for the same number of TRMs on each side (pod). Add in a dedicated power source, say a new Rolls-Royce turbogenerator at… Read more »
its actually the safest rotorcraft per flight hour in the US military- you can google that and see plenty of info. its crashes are just much higher profile because the media made a massive deal about it during development when it had a bad accident. keep in mind over 400 have been built and they’re not exactly used in the easiest environments (afghan, iraq, off amphibs etc). the marines actually praise its survivability due its its speed and altitude compared to regular helicopters making it less susceptible to ground fire. japan operates them as well, i wasn’t aware that sale… Read more »
Interesting. Just goes to show that what you read doesn’t always cover reality, as if that’s a surprise to any of us. If, as I suspect the days of beach landings are over, at least apart from anything very simple, maybe the range and speed are the answer for the infil/exfil role.
I note that the role of CV-22 is quoted as ‘to conduct long-range infiltration, exfiltration and resupply missions for special operations forces’.
COD is not mentioned – why?
Do we need Osprey for either the role quoted or for COD? How have we managed thus far?
They would help a lot.
Firstly, they can lift an F35 engine internally, which Merlin cannot.
Secondly, they can be fitted out to perform tanking operations.
If the USMC is letting go of a few we should consider bidding for them.
They would indeed be a great asset to the RN! A while back they were talking about using a QE as an LPH to insert troops, but due to short range of our helicopters that’s a no no, but CV-22 has a far greater range and speed so could allow something along those lines.
If we find ourself In need of invading a well defended hostile coast too dangerous for Merlin’s we will be doing it as part of a US lead coalition and they can lend us.
Tragedy of the commons. If the US is fighting a war, they won’t be able to lend anything to anyone. You guys need to get your heads on straight.
The idea that Ospreys will give us a serious capacity to land troops off of a hostile coast is fanciful at best. Only amongst an American task force would we ever even think about it and guess what that’s exactly why the Americans like to test them on our carriers so that they are well aware of the aerodynamic conditions in so doing so if such circumstances did arise they could as necessary operate from extra decks for flexibility and numbers. It’s the only way there will be Ospreys onboard our carriers in a conflict and in my opinion I… Read more »
A similar belief existed prior to the Falklands where we found ourselves wanting when it came to transporting troops by air……
You are guessing at a US lead. The Falklands coast was hostile in Apr/May 1982.
Ferry range of a Chinook is: 1,216 nmi (1,399 mi, 2,252 km)
Would that not be enough?
Accept that CV-22 Ferry range is more: 2,230 nmi (2,570 mi, 4,130 km)
Chinook can take 55 troops. CV-22 can only take: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded).
MV-22 has a major advantage in range and a far superior speed..
Have you seen how difficult it is to load an F35 engine into one? It’s no trivial matter, I would be interested to know how often it’s done actually I suspect emergency only.
Why doesn’t a carrier carry a spare F35 engine onboard? Or did they not design a space for one?
CV-22 is USAF. USAF has no need for COD
MV-22 is USMC
CMV-22 is USN
The CV-22B Osprey that landed on ‘Liz was a USAF version and is from the USAF special operations command (AFSOC) not the USN version. The US Navy version is the CMV-22B and it replaces the C-2 Greyhound in the COD role. The Navy version has the same extended range tanks as the AFSOC version, but without all the Gucci kit. So far we haven’t needed long range COD. For personnel transfer the Navy have used Merlins with extended range fuel tanks fitted. Though this is substantially shorter in range than what the CMV-22B can do. Similarly for spare engines. The… Read more »
Indeed the F-35 engine aspect was a pr job by its backers to get doubters onboard with a ‘in an emergency it can be done’ mantra and understandably it worked. But it’s not a normal service capability and I doubt that the UK would ever use that capability. In the Pacific the US just feels more se urge knowing it can at a stretch. It’s not something to make a buying choice over that’s for sure, esp when the aircraft has serious liabilities on the flip side. We need to be realistic and fi used on what are vital but… Read more »
CMV 22 has been separately developed for COD for USN.
The US Navy has the greyhound COD, which has served faithfully for many years…. It’s basically a Hawkeye’s half brother….
The JSDF have brought around 17 specifically for COD duties
Probably better to wait for the Bell V-280 Valor.
Possibly but it’s a much smaller volume and takeoff weight. But cheaper and more nimble. Another fantasy MOD purchase.
I doubt it could haul an F35 engine internally.
Does that matter? The carrier has spares, one could be delivered underslung, we still have Chinooks, and the best way to deliver an F135 in a hurry is inside a replacement F-35B.
When would we ever use it for that? Far better and easier ways to supply it in our area of operations it’s a pig of a job to do. To buy an aircraft like that for the once in a blue moon need to do that is madness. Considering the carrier has to dock fairly regularly it’s far easier and cheaper to supply it that way. And in a shooting war it’s hardly likely it will be easier, safer or even much quicker indeed to do it either I suspect in most circumstances.
👍 A much better idea. The issues with the first generation V-22 besides the cost are still ongoing as several US marines were killed just a few weeks ago.
The problems are fundamentally unsolvable, it’s a flawed design based around the wing and engine combination that was dictated reluctantly at design stage to get around its ultimate footprint, they simply ameliorate the undesirable side effects as best they can in service. They are stuck with something they wish they could replace but even they can’t afford to do that. Reminds me of the US carrier aircraft pre war where they got the centre of gravity calculations wrong so kinked the wing at the root to counter it, rather than a full redesign. It wasn’t a great success surprisingly.
find something that says the USMC, US air force and US navy (who just recently ordered their own model for COD) say they wish they could replace it. since entering service in 2007 there have only been 8 crashes with 16 fatalities with over 400 of them flying- many of those years deployed to warzones. if you read the accident reports most of those happened due to pilot error- landing in a brownout etc, not a design flaw.
Yep, some of the operational requirement constraints, were that the port undercarriage had to be a minimum of 3ft away from the edge of the deck of a LHD, plus the prop-rotor tips had to be no more than 5ft from the island structure. As the USN/USMC wanted the aircraft to be able to taxi past the island. However, for the weight of the aircraft, this meant that the wing had to be shortened. Which then meant the prop-rotors had to be shortened. This had a knock-on effect with the lift the prop-rotors generated. At the expected rpm, they didn’t… Read more »
Ahh Our part time Valour salesman, the paper plane that has all the answers. There maybe good reasons its not projected to go to sea at all!
V-280 Valor, first flight 2017, retired to update to Army specs 2021. You have to admire its durability. None of my paper planes lasted more than an hour.
That was a technology demonstrator. The paper plane Im referring to is the US Army production model, and the sea going version which isnt even a program
The old name for that part of the programme was JMR-TD (tech demonstrator). Nevertheless, they built prototypes on which the production model will be based, not demonstrators.
The marine version would need practical work done before production, refining the design and building a prototype. That’s not a reason to avoid doing it. There’s nothing technologically new or risky to the marinisation.
Hi Duker, sadly I’m not on a commission. Bell have a full scale “marinized” model of the Valor, that they’ve been showing to interested parties. This has the folding rotors and wing that swings through 90 degrees. To do this they’ve inverted the V-tail. They have been promoting this as a Huey replacement for the USMC. Which would then meet their long range Pacific requirement. Whether or not the USMC go for the Valor is a hurry up and wait situation. Though perhaps there may be legs in the marinized Valor, as US Marine pilots were seen flying the prototype… Read more »
Ahhh the Display models , anything is possible when you have fibreglass and never leaves the ground The Marines dont have a Huey replacment requirement yet and when they do it wont be a tilt rotor because the Osprey is space hog on the amphib deck and dont need another – as you pointed out it has a bigger wing span. The Huey is more like the Wildcat for RN , a smaller versatile but less capable helicopter than the heavy duty ones. The USMC dont have a mission even for a UH60 sized helicopter, so the V280 is major… Read more »
Personally I would like to see the Hercules fleet replaced with CV-22. In reality the MOD is right that the A400M replaces completely the strategic lift and heavy tactical lift role of the Hercules..but it leaves a big hole in the tactical lift Between the 80,000lb load 4000nm range strategic and heavy tactical lift of the A400M requiring 750m of runway and 24,000lb load 400nm chinook…the v-22 offers 900mn and a 20,000 load..at a far great speed than the chinook so fitting a gap as when we loss the Hercules we will have a tactical lift gap that could be… Read more »
I am hoping that Bell will design a new Osprey 2, following lessons learned from the V280 Valor program. Even if this was just restricted to the engine and gearbox layout of the Valor, it would massively help the maintenance burden of the Osprey. As it would mean the engine doesn’t then suck up foreign objects, when the exhaust is digging holes in the ground. Also a ship, won’t need a thermal coating on its landing deck, as the exhaust is directed backwards, some 10ft above the ground. The engines being FODed is one of the biggest problems with the… Read more »
Osprey is 10,000 lbs cargo not 20k and at max combat range is more like 6k
While the single hook external cargo limit of the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey is 10,000lb, several sites say the internal capacity is 20,000lb, including Boeing’s. The US Airforce on the other hand gives 10,000lb cargo payload for their CV-22. Airforce Technology site also agrees with you and at 430nm combat range quotes 6,000 lb VTOL. I’ve seen a quote that the MV-22 refueller can carry 10,000lb of fuel in refuelling tanks, plus 12,000lb more internally, for a stats-bustin’ 22K total; that was from a USMC Osprey pilot on a US government website. (Tell that one to the Marines, Major.) Lots… Read more »
Thats so . For the Marines carrying 10,000 lb cargo it can go 50nm
If the US are seriously pitching the second hand F16 ‘so from Denmark to Argentina? The UK must be dancing to the US tune over the Martin Baker ejection seats. It must about time the US scratched are backs, a good package on half a dozen CV22 would be nice.
Agreed, but make that a minimum of a dozen with options for more at a later date. The RN could use a minimum of 4 x CMV-22 for COD, whilst Royal Marines could use a few MV-22
Out of the question. The Merlin is right sized for the RN and RM . The USMC and USN dont have any chopper in that size capability
The Seahawk is way smaller than Merlin and the Osprey way bigger footprint for its extra capability
If Argentina have western jets we can influence supply of parts and weapons. I they go Chinese or Russian we have no control. Its a difficult choice but there some logic in letting them acquire some outdated western kit.
100%. Look at the power the US has over Turkey right now with the F-35/F-16 debacle. While Erdogan bullies everyone around him, he tip toes carefully with them because he knows they have him by the…
The back scratching is all one way in that relationship…
The F-16 doesn’t use MB ejection seats though? It uses US built ACES II seats. I am not sure if the F-16 has any UK content in it at all?
Engineers have a saying, “if it looks right, it is right.” As an engineer, I have never liked the look of tiltrotors. I wouldn’t touch ’em with a long pole.
Flown on them quite a few times in Afghan. Quieter than a Chinook, though not as smooth as Merlin.
Had the UK properly ‘bit the bullet’ with CATOBAR, none of this would be an issue.
Yes and no wrt CATOBAR. We probably still wouldn’t have had a deployable carrier to date if we had gone down that route given the issues the US is/had having with EMALS, let alone anything else connected with it. It has of course given us other issues to contend with, notably a distinct lack of AAR and a decent AEW capability, both of which wouldn’t have been an issue with CATOBAR, although the Hawkeye doesn’t come cheap neither. The two carriers are big enough to carry enough oversized spares(engines) to not really worry about needing something like the Osprey. It’s… Read more »
Also how many carriers would we have ended up getting if we went down the CATOBAR route, we would most likely have been stuck in the same situation as the French. Any time it get taken out of action due to repairs, refits ect you are pretty much screwed.
That might well have been the case. Thankfully we have the two, which always gives us one at the ready.
The liaison with the French should always guarantee a carrier at the short and ready in the Atlantic/Med , whilst at the same time releasing either 1 or 2 of the US CSG from the Atlantic for other tasking(Pacific).
Buying used/refurbished E-2C and C-2A’s would be option #1. The US has already offered and sold them to other countries. There is even an offer to overhaul the S-3’s back into service.
Constantly leaning on “something better is available tomorrow, no reason to buy today” is going to be a disaster when an actually war shows up and the RN has nothing in the shed. Power-points and wishful thinking doesn’t win wars.
Also, EMALS is completely operational. If you want low risk, put a commercial gas fired boiler and a pair of C-13-2’s on the QE/PoW. They’re available today and proven.
Yes, it is now, but wasn’t back a few years ago when we were looking at CATOBAR. Its got nothing to do with risk either, EMALS didn’t work, took the US a while (and money) to sort out.
Have to agree with previous post, especially S-3, lovely plane, retired far too early (as were our Gannets). Its a capability that helicopters couldn’t match.
What happened to the large fleet of soviet submarines ? Thats why
No, thats not the reason we switched over to helicopters for ASW work at all. We retired our Gannets obviously due to age and didn’t field a fixed wing replacement because we retired our CATOBAR carriers and replaced them with the Invincible class/Harrier force structure. I think you will find that in the 80’s the Soviets still fielded a significantly large SM force and did so up until the late 90’s/early 00’s. The US S-3 fleet was much newer in terms of age so served past 2010 before being retired. The USN went from 4-5 carrier aircraft types to 1… Read more »
The USN retired its fixed wing ASW but wasnt because of age
I dont think the USN is seriously considering bringing the S-3 back . A few …? thats completely out of bounds as its a complicated system that needs both trained operators and completely new avionics
My view is thats just wishfull thinking and P-8 and the Japanese P-1 are the fixed wing assets for east Asia
This is currently a discussion point for the USN CSGs, it’s two fold, one to use them in the AAR role to help extend the strike range of both F18+F35’s, freeing up the AAR F18s for strike missions. Also to bring extended area ASW back to push potential Chinese LR missile envelope further out.
It’s just a consideration that might gain traction, as the USN have realised they need something to fill these capability gaps, as they are considering a new fixed wing design, which would obviously take far longer to bring into service.
Discussions are about all sorts of things .
The carrier refueler has a different solution , a autonomous stealth jet is already in testing which is a new airframe.
Current AAR drone that is being progressed is MQ25 Stingray, which the USN is hopping to bring into service sometime this decade I believe.
S3 option might well end up nowhere, but an interesting idea all the same, as it brings more than just AAR/ASW capabilities to the party. Would certainly cost a fair bit to upgrade the airframes, but significantly cheaper then new ones. Nice option to have I imagine.
“sometime this decade’??
IOC is 2026, so in in the 2-3 years
“The MQ-25A Stingray, the first major unmanned aerial vehicle to deploy on U.S. aircraft carriers, will serve as an aerial refueling tanker on a carrier starting in 2026, Rear Adm. Stephen Tedford, program executive officer, Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons said during a presentation at the Navy League Sea Air and Space symposium.” USNI news
best of all , it doesnt need to rest between deployments, a detachment can be sent out again when the carrier comes home
So, IOC in 2026, later this decade then!! Im sure FOC will follow a few years after, possibly by 2029/30. If so a good result for the USN, but, that’s only one aspect of what they need to counter Chinese expansion.
They like the rest of NATO/western world have been caught on the hop by events over the last few years, and it is going to get worse for us(in terms of assets/capabilities/mass) before it gets better unfortunately.
So you have a ‘good idea of whats needed’ now. Its gone from just some ‘cakground’ chatter on the KS-3 which isnt even a test program , to they need more than the MQ-25.
Its very difficult to get money from congress for duplicate programs these days . It will be ‘more Mq-25’ in my view if that is the shortfall
It would be good to get some V22 for AEW….
A variant that doesnt exist , isnt planned. And isnt required as the Merlin AEW is around an complemented by F35 as its very capable in AEW too