HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
ash73 said:
FourWheelDrift said:
Just doing it's bit for the environment.
The Chinese type 001 carrier Liaoning is its sister ship iirc.FourWheelDrift said:
You are assuming the MOD actually plans things like normal sane people. F-35b can't buddy refuel last I read. So unless there's a Voyager around their missions will be short. Or the MOD spends even more money on something else.
It's not that it can't do it. Cobham will happily integrate the relevant equipment and certify it. It's simply that no-one has put up the money to do it so far. The US Navy are quite happy to use their F/A-18s as tankers, the US Marines have other priorities and other F-35B buyers are happy using land-based tankers.El stovey said:
From the article
Maj Gen Konashenkov said Mr Fallon's "exalted statements" about HMS Queen Elizabeth "demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge of naval science".
"Unlike the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, fitted with air-defence, anti-submarine and, most importantly, Granit anti-ship missile systems, the British aircraft carrier is just a convenient, large maritime target," he said.
Response from the QEC design team - who the Maj Gen Konashenkov said Mr Fallon's "exalted statements" about HMS Queen Elizabeth "demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge of naval science".
"Unlike the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, fitted with air-defence, anti-submarine and, most importantly, Granit anti-ship missile systems, the British aircraft carrier is just a convenient, large maritime target," he said.
puts ASM's on a carrier? only the Russians who know absolutely jack about operating a large carrier.- 1 lesson from WW2 carrier operations - the carriers main armament is its aircraft, putting other weapons systems on the carrier always compromises aircraft operations, so put them on the escorts instead where they don't get in the way.
QEC, Nimitz, CdeG - single purpose aircraft operating platforms
Nanook said:
ash73 said:
Voyager is fine if the carrier is in range of a large friendly airbase, but a carrier launched Osprey would allow refuelling anywhere. Or to put it another way, if you're using a Voyager why do you need a carrier? Why not fly the F35’s from the same airbase?
Range and time. Say you want to attack the Falklands, from the UK. The voyager is just about up to a return trip in terms of its operational range.
Ascension is 4000 miles from Falklands, Voyager has a max range of about 5,000 miles with a full load. The F-35B has a combat radius of about 400 and something miles.......without aux tanks......and you won't be fitting them 'cos your stealth goes out the window....
So, by my maths............the F-35B would be diving into the 'oggin about a 1000 miles short of the FI, so no way would you get a F-35B to the Falklands from Ascension......let alone back.......without taking them on a carrier.
But you wouldn't need to.
Aside from the fact there is a credible fighter in the Falklands (the Typhoon) to which the Argentines have no counter, there is also a Tanker down South, so all of a sudden you've halved the logistics problem.
How do you think we did the F4 and F3 roulements to MPA?
Hint: They didn't go by carrier.
Aside from the fact there is a credible fighter in the Falklands (the Typhoon) to which the Argentines have no counter, there is also a Tanker down South, so all of a sudden you've halved the logistics problem.
How do you think we did the F4 and F3 roulements to MPA?
Hint: They didn't go by carrier.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
But you wouldn't need to.
Aside from the fact there is a credible fighter in the Falklands (the Typhoon) to which the Argentines have no counter, there is also a Tanker down South, so all of a sudden you've halved the logistics problem.
How do you think we did the F4 and F3 roulements to MPA?
Hint: They didn't go by carrier.
Yes, I know, I was questing the point that you couldn't attack from a base other than the FI....on the assumption, if as before you no longer had occupation of the place.Aside from the fact there is a credible fighter in the Falklands (the Typhoon) to which the Argentines have no counter, there is also a Tanker down South, so all of a sudden you've halved the logistics problem.
How do you think we did the F4 and F3 roulements to MPA?
Hint: They didn't go by carrier.
As you say, that's a lot less likely with what we have down there, but, I still think that not equipping Voyager with a self AAR capability as we had with all our previous tanker options could bite us at some point in the future.
aeropilot said:
Yes, I know, I was questing the point that you couldn't attack from a base other than the FI....on the assumption, if as before you no longer had occupation of the place.
As you say, that's a lot less likely with what we have down there, but, I still think that not equipping Voyager with a self AAR capability as we had with all our previous tanker options could bite us at some point in the future.
Ah OK As you say, that's a lot less likely with what we have down there, but, I still think that not equipping Voyager with a self AAR capability as we had with all our previous tanker options could bite us at some point in the future.
I completely agree about self AAR capability!
Nanook said:
LotusOmega375D said:
Here's a solution from the internet: looks awkward, but not impossible. Trouble is the Osprey would take up so much space on board with its crazy rotors.
Like many aircraft designed to operate off a carrier, they fold up.
Don't know if the aircraft lifts on QEC are large enough for one though.
Extract from wiki relating to V-22 refuelling
Refueling capability
Boeing is developing a roll-on/roll-off aerial refueling kit, which would give the V-22 the ability to refuel other aircraft. Having an aerial refueling capability that can be based off Wasp-class amphibious assault ships would increase the striking power of Marine F-35Bs, as they would not rely on refueling assets that could only be based on full-sized Nimitz-class aircraft carriers or from land bases. The roll-on/roll-off kit can also be applicable to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) functions.[136] Boeing funded a non-functional demonstration on a VMX-22 aircraft; a prototype kit was successfully tested with an F/A-18 on 5 September 2013.[137]
The high-speed version of the hose/drogue refueling system is designed to be deployed at 185 knots (213 mph; 343 km/h) and function at up to 250 knots (290 mph; 460 km/h). Onboard tanks and a roll-on/roll-off bladder can contain up to 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) of fuel. The operator must open the ramp to extend the refueling hose, then raise the ramp once extended, with the top ramp door left open. The V-22 could refuel rotary-wing aircraft, but it would require a separate drogue used specifically by helicopters and a partially converted nacelle.[138] Since many Marine Corps ground vehicles can run on aviation fuel, a refueling V-22 could also service them. In late 2014, it was stated that such tankers could be operational by 2017,[139] but a contract delay pushed IOC to late 2019.[140]
While the Navy has not declared a firm interest to use the V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS) on its planned COD fleet, the capability could be leveraged later on.[141] Boeing had conducted an internally financed proof of concept for the roll-on/roll-off capability, with an anticipated USMC contract providing funds to "productionise the kit". VARS would become operational in FY 2018 and allow the Osprey to become the USMC's "recovery tanker" to refuel inbound aircraft to remain aloft while awaiting landing clearance for available deck space.[142] As part of a 26 May 2016 contract award to Boeing,[143] Cobham was contracted to adapt their FR-300 hose drum unit as used by the KC-130 in October 2016.[144]
Worth ordering a few?
Refueling capability
Boeing is developing a roll-on/roll-off aerial refueling kit, which would give the V-22 the ability to refuel other aircraft. Having an aerial refueling capability that can be based off Wasp-class amphibious assault ships would increase the striking power of Marine F-35Bs, as they would not rely on refueling assets that could only be based on full-sized Nimitz-class aircraft carriers or from land bases. The roll-on/roll-off kit can also be applicable to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) functions.[136] Boeing funded a non-functional demonstration on a VMX-22 aircraft; a prototype kit was successfully tested with an F/A-18 on 5 September 2013.[137]
The high-speed version of the hose/drogue refueling system is designed to be deployed at 185 knots (213 mph; 343 km/h) and function at up to 250 knots (290 mph; 460 km/h). Onboard tanks and a roll-on/roll-off bladder can contain up to 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) of fuel. The operator must open the ramp to extend the refueling hose, then raise the ramp once extended, with the top ramp door left open. The V-22 could refuel rotary-wing aircraft, but it would require a separate drogue used specifically by helicopters and a partially converted nacelle.[138] Since many Marine Corps ground vehicles can run on aviation fuel, a refueling V-22 could also service them. In late 2014, it was stated that such tankers could be operational by 2017,[139] but a contract delay pushed IOC to late 2019.[140]
While the Navy has not declared a firm interest to use the V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS) on its planned COD fleet, the capability could be leveraged later on.[141] Boeing had conducted an internally financed proof of concept for the roll-on/roll-off capability, with an anticipated USMC contract providing funds to "productionise the kit". VARS would become operational in FY 2018 and allow the Osprey to become the USMC's "recovery tanker" to refuel inbound aircraft to remain aloft while awaiting landing clearance for available deck space.[142] As part of a 26 May 2016 contract award to Boeing,[143] Cobham was contracted to adapt their FR-300 hose drum unit as used by the KC-130 in October 2016.[144]
Worth ordering a few?
LotusOmega375D said:
Here's a solution from the internet: looks awkward, but not impossible. Trouble is the Osprey would take up so much space on board with its crazy rotors.
At a guess they were testing if they could do it at low speed; perhaps so they could mix F-35 with helicopter fueling?They've also tried it with an F-18 at more normal speeds
YouTube Video
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff