Air to air refuelling options 'being explored' for QE Class

[Meatbox8]

An article on UK Defence Journal states that the MOD are exploring options for air-air refuelling of aircraft operating from QE and POW.  As QE is soon to embark on her maiden voyage this strikes me as a little bit of an oversight on the part of those 'in charge'.  I'm sure Cobham or someone will come up with the goods eventually but has the F-35B even been tested by the USMC for operating buddy packs.  I'm assuming it will be buddy packs of course as I can't imagine what other 'options' there could possibly be. 

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/shipborne-air-air-refuelling-capability-explored-queen-elizabeth-carriers/

[cardiff guy]

how about a duel role Osprey AEW and tanker, or long range anti sub and tanker kinda like the us navy did with the s-3 Viking.

[Meatbox8]

1 hour ago, cardiff guy said:

how about a duel role Osprey AEW and tanker, or long range anti sub and tanker kinda like the us navy did with the s-3 Viking.

 

 

I have to say that I always thought that was the best option in the long term if it is feasible. 

[Vickers McFunbus]

You also have to ask "is it necessary?" For pre-planned operations we now have an AAR fleet which can be anywhere in the world exceptionally quickly with minimal need to stop elsewhere with an aircraft with fuel coming our of its ears. Are there going to be that many places we will not have any ability to position a land based tanker near enough to be effective?

[Meatbox8]

10 minutes ago, Vickers McFunbus said:

You also have to ask "is it necessary?" For pre-planned operations we now have an AAR fleet which can be anywhere in the world exceptionally quickly with minimal need to stop elsewhere with an aircraft with fuel coming our of its ears. Are there going to be that many places we will not have any ability to position a land based tanker near enough to be effective?

 

 

That's a good point and brings in to question the very concept of a having a carrier capability.  As I understand it the point of having these carriers is for force projection, particularly where there are no friendly airstrips.  If such places exist in the World I, frankly don't know, but one would imagine the MOD sees the possibility of circumstances where it wouldn't be practical to refuel Tornados, Typhoons, F-35s et al, from a local(ish) airstrip and, therefore, an immediate loiter refuelling capability is desirable. 

[PLC1966]

But Meatbox8, whilst it is an ability that is in the 'would be great category' I would really question whether the MoD has got the money for it.  And if we do produce the refeulling capability something else will be chopped. There ain't enough money on the pot.

[Vickers McFunbus]

7 hours ago, Meatbox8 said:

 

 

That's a good point and brings in to question the very concept of a having a carrier capability.  As I understand it the point of having these carriers is for force projection, particularly where there are no friendly airstrips.  If such places exist in the World I, frankly don't know, but one would imagine the MOD sees the possibility of circumstances where it wouldn't be practical to refuel Tornados, Typhoons, F-35s et al, from a local(ish) airstrip and, therefore, an immediate loiter refuelling capability is desirable. 

 

You can provide that loiter capability from a distant airstrip though. The same happened in Afghanistan - the tankers supporting the fast jets based either in Afghanistan or on the carriers were based at distant airfields away from those forces, not "in theatre". The point of carriers allows the distribution of the force anywhere with all its support there, rather than deploying it, which would be a huge, and expensive, logistical operation itself.

 

the fact that we now have tankers with extreme range and huge capacity (i.e. The A330) means the need for a "tactical" tanker is diminished somewhat. Not to mention that the AirTanker PFI contract would need re-writing.

[Meatbox8]

8 hours ago, PLC1966 said:

But Meatbox8, whilst it is an ability that is in the 'would be great category' I would really question whether the MoD has got the money for it.  And if we do produce the refeulling capability something else will be chopped. There ain't enough money on the pot.

Quite.  Which comes back to the question 'Why now?' with regards to options for refuelling.  Would it be that expensive though?  Is there any off the shelf kit that could be acquired and, if so, would there be any difficult plumbing issues with the F-35? 

[Britman]

From my limited knowledge, surely a "wet" pylon and a refuelling pod as done so many times in the past?

[Meatbox8]

1 hour ago, Vickers McFunbus said:

 

You can provide that loiter capability from a distant airstrip though. The same happened in Afghanistan - the tankers supporting the fast jets based either in Afghanistan or on the carriers were based at distant airfields away from those forces, not "in theatre". The point of carriers allows the distribution of the force anywhere with all its support there, rather than deploying it, which would be a huge, and expensive, logistical operation itself.

 

the fact that we now have tankers with extreme range and huge capacity (i.e. The A330) means the need for a "tactical" tanker is diminished somewhat. Not to mention that the AirTanker PFI contract would need re-writing.

I agree, which is why the whole thing is a bit odd.   If air to air can be provided by the A330 fleet (I really don't like the name Voyager) it kind of begs the question 'what are the carriers for?', particularly as the soon to be de-commissioned HMS Ocean is capable of providing helicopter support.

 

On the other hand there is clearly seen to be a potential need for 'tactical' refuelling, otherwise why study it as an option?  It just seems to be a bit of an afterthought, although not quite such an afterthought as 'on second thoughts lets have the F-35B after all as QE doesn't generate any steam so we can't have cat and trap anyway'. 

 

Out of interest, I wonder what the endurance of the F-35B is.  I don't suppose there are any figures available in the public domain although it's fair to guess it is lower than the 'A' and 'C'. 

[Meatbox8]

9 minutes ago, Britman said:

From my limited knowledge, surely a "wet" pylon and a refuelling pod as done so many times in the past?

Absolutely.  The FAA's 800B squadron Scimitars springs to mind.  Presumably the USN still has that capability too. 

[PLC1966]

I am not 100%, but I thought the F-35B is currently not A-2-A refuel capable full stop.

[Meatbox8]

10 minutes ago, PLC1966 said:

I am not 100%, but I thought the F-35B is currently not A-2-A refuel capable full stop.

 

 

It does have the capability.  The RAF have been doing air to air certification with A330s for a while (probe and drogue).   It looks like the A version is boom fed as the Aussies, Dutch and Italians have also been certifying using this method.  Having said that, aren't the Italians buying the B version for the Garibaldi?  If so then the B can do both as the image I've seen has an Italian AF KC-767 refuelling an F-35 with a boom rather than probe and drogue.

[PLC1966]

Thanks Meatbox8.

[Giorgio N]

The Italian tests have been conducted using a boom but on the F-35A only. The A can in theory be equipped with a probe-and-drogue system as the space has been retained but IIRC this would involve a whole lot of new testing as the installation may change the aircraft CG.

No F-35B has yet been delivered to Italy, so testing on this variant has not started here. The Italian KC-767 fleet can use both the boom and the drogue system so even with different systems on the two F-35 variants there's no problem. Of course the F-35B can be refuelled in flight and tests started in 2009

 

More in general though there sure are valid points for the retention of a carrier borne tanker fleet if the carriers are meant to operate as part of independent carrier groups, as even during peacetime operations it may be necessary to refuel aircrafts in air, for example in case of certain emergencies. The USN retains this capability through the use of refuelling pods on their Super Hornets.

[hairystick]

Not having an air-to-air refueling capability based on a carrier is utter madness.

 

Far away from land (e.g. Falklands campaign) and Raf tankers wouldn't cope (too few numbers, distances, etc), coupled with the -35b's short legs means that "something" needs to be in place.

If you look at an "unfolded" -35b which has everything opened up, there isn't much space for fuel. They even use the vertical tailplanes for fuel storage!

 

Carriers are an independent force. Being tied to apron-strings of land-based tankers is the sort of idiocy that politicians would come up with.

 

[Meatbox8]

21 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

The Italian tests have been conducted using a boom but on the F-35A only. The A can in theory be equipped with a probe-and-drogue system as the space has been retained but IIRC this would involve a whole lot of new testing as the installation may change the aircraft CG.

No F-35B has yet been delivered to Italy, so testing on this variant has not started here. The Italian KC-767 fleet can use both the boom and the drogue system so even with different systems on the two F-35 variants there's no problem. Of course the F-35B can be refuelled in flight and tests started in 2009

 

More in general though there sure are valid points for the retention of a carrier borne tanker fleet if the carriers are meant to operate as part of independent carrier groups, as even during peacetime operations it may be necessary to refuel aircrafts in air, for example in case of certain emergencies. The USN retains this capability through the use of refuelling pods on their Super Hornets.

Is Italy to get both the 'A' and 'B' versions?

[Giorgio N]

7 hours ago, hairystick said:

Not having an air-to-air refueling capability based on a carrier is utter madness.

 

Far away from land (e.g. Falklands campaign) and Raf tankers wouldn't cope (too few numbers, distances, etc), coupled with the -35b's short legs means that "something" needs to be in place.

If you look at an "unfolded" -35b which has everything opened up, there isn't much space for fuel. They even use the vertical tailplanes for fuel storage!

 

Carriers are an independent force. Being tied to apron-strings of land-based tankers is the sort of idiocy that politicians would come up with.

 

 

Totally agree that having some carrier based IFR capability is extremely useful. At the same time though in the same Falklands campaign the FAA operated succesfully without any such capability and with an aircraft that had around 60% the range of the F-35B. The legs of the F-35B may be short but are still way longer than any form of Harrier.

 

8 minutes ago, Meatbox8 said:

Is Italy to get both the 'A' and 'B' versions?

 

That's the plan, at the moment the numbers are 60 A to replace the Tornado in the Air Force and 30 B for the Navy. The original numbers were higher but money is hard to find in the State budget at the moment and the program has attracted here, like everywhere else, plenty of criticism, with some political parties pushing for the cancellation of the Italian participation.

[Meatbox8]

24 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Totally agree that having some carrier based IFR capability is extremely useful. At the same time though in the same Falklands campaign the FAA operated succesfully without any such capability and with an aircraft that had around 60% the range of the F-35B. The legs of the F-35B may be short but are still way longer than any form of Harrier.

 

 

That's the plan, at the moment the numbers are 60 A to replace the Tornado in the Air Force and 30 B for the Navy. The original numbers were higher but money is hard to find in the State budget at the moment and the program has attracted here, like everywhere else, plenty of criticism, with some political parties pushing for the cancellation of the Italian participation.

That is the sort of ratio I think the UK should have had rather than an all 'B' fleet.  I believe the main objection was the cost of operating and servicing two different versions.  I would much prefer the RAF to have had the more capable 'A' mark and, as it appear that it's unlikely both carriers will be operating at the same time in the strike carrier role, 30 odd 'B's sounds adequate for the Royal Navy. 

[Truro Model Builder]

The RAF carried out AAR trials with a Voyager and the F-35B last year.

 

More problematic is that the F-35B, as part of the weight reduction programme carried out by Lockheed Martin, will not be able to carry auxiliary fuel tanks on external pylons. This also means that it will not be able to carry a buddy pod as the required plumbing is not there, so unless one of our small fleet of Voyagers is available the range will be limited. With no tanker the carrier may have to get a lot closer to the target than might be comfortable, and if it cannot receive the aircraft back for any reason there may not be the chance to reach an alternative.

 

At the risk of getting political, it once again points to decisions being made without enough thought for contingencies.

 

[Vickers McFunbus]

On 03/05/2017 at 9:08 AM, Meatbox8 said:

I agree, which is why the whole thing is a bit odd.   If air to air can be provided by the A330 fleet (I really don't like the name Voyager) it kind of begs the question 'what are the carriers for?', particularly as the soon to be de-commissioned HMS Ocean is capable of providing helicopter support.

 

 

Having the carriers is a whole different ball game. A carrier serves several purposes. As we saw in 1982 (without AAR for the embarked aircraft) it can react to a threat or attack, particularly in an area where no land based runways are available (where, in that case, AAR was not required for carrier assets). As a force it can be placed preemptively as an independent group to add influence to a situation, as we've seen with the US carrier groups trundling down to the vicinity of the Korean Peninsular, which could not be done conventionally.

[Meatbox8]

1 hour ago, T7 Models said:

The RAF carried out AAR trials with a Voyager and the F-35B last year.

 

More problematic is that the F-35B, as part of the weight reduction programme carried out by Lockheed Martin, will not be able to carry auxiliary fuel tanks on external pylons. This also means that it will not be able to carry a buddy pod as the required plumbing is not there, so unless one of our small fleet of Voyagers is available the range will be limited. With no tanker the carrier may have to get a lot closer to the target than might be comfortable, and if it cannot receive the aircraft back for any reason there may not be the chance to reach an alternative.

 

At the risk of getting political, it once again points to decisions being made without enough thought for contingencies.

 

So it makes you wonder just what the 'options' are that are being considered.  Using a Merlin!?  Btw, if the F-35B can't carry pylon mounted fuel tanks can it carry any other wing mounted stores?

[Meatbox8]

1 hour ago, Vickers McFunbus said:

 

Having the carriers is a whole different ball game. A carrier serves several purposes. As we saw in 1982 (without AAR for the embarked aircraft) it can react to a threat or attack, particularly in an area where no land based runways are available (where, in that case, AAR was not required for carrier assets). As a force it can be placed preemptively as an independent group to add influence to a situation, as we've seen with the US carrier groups trundling down to the vicinity of the Korean Peninsular, which could not be done conventionally.

I'm a firm believer in the Navy having a carrier capability.  But, as T7 suggests, it's the somewhat haphazard way that these projects are managed and the subsequent compromises that always seem to be required with defence procurement that I find so difficult to fathom. 

[Meatbox8]

Btw chaps, to avoid us drifting in to the arena of politics perhaps we should investigate what other options are possible for the AAR role from  QE and POW.  If the F-35B has no 'wet' pylons is it even feasible that a Merlin could do the job?  After all, the whole raison d'etre for the purchase of the B was that it is STOVL so I suppose it can format with a helicopter at low speed.  I would imagine that the fuel consumption penalty for doing this would make the whole operation rather counter-productive. 

[Truro Model Builder]

As far as I can see, the ONLY option is land based tankers, unless QE or PoW is operating near US or French carriers with buddy pod-equipped Rafales or F-18s. The MoD have already said that they are not looking to procure the Osprey, and while the idea of an AAR Merlin is fascinating, trying to plug into a basket near all that rotor downwash would be... entertaining.