UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25122
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Dec 2020, 08:31

The QE Class have HUGE hangars that I'll guess without being crammed with aircraft will have a lot of space to store spare F135s. The Brits do not have the same CONOPS as the USN or even the USMC. BTW we have not seen any news of the Osprey Tanker Trials for a long long time now. The RN New Supply ships are likely to be able to easily transfer engine modules and other big stuff over to the QE Class in case of urgent resupply of used up engine stock. Other navies DO NOT have to operate like the USN/USMC. They figure out their own way and often get new stuff going like the JUMP de SKY!
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7029
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Dec 2020, 00:54

spazsinbad wrote:The QE Class have HUGE hangars that I'll guess without being crammed with aircraft will have a lot of space to store spare F135s. The Brits do not have the same CONOPS as the USN or even the USMC. BTW we have not seen any news of the Osprey Tanker Trials for a long long time now. The RN New Supply ships are likely to be able to easily transfer engine modules and other big stuff over to the QE Class in case of urgent resupply of used up engine stock. Other navies DO NOT have to operate like the USN/USMC. They figure out their own way and often get new stuff going like the JUMP de SKY!


Something always comes up and during times of crisis or conflict. It's usually critical.

Nonetheless, having the Osprey would offer considerable benefit in a number of ways. While, not having it is a handicap....
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25122
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Dec 2020, 01:35

We are told the USMC F-35B will be onboard some of the time also supported by the their V-22. Nevertheless the UK does not have F-22s either. OMG what will they do? How will they survive? The sky is falling! Countries are always constrained compared to the USofA; which itself is constrained by various factors, money, politics and whatever else one can think.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7029
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Dec 2020, 01:53

spazsinbad wrote:We are told the USMC F-35B will be onboard some of the time also supported by the their V-22. Nevertheless the UK does not have F-22s either. OMG what will they do? How will they survive? The sky is falling! Countries are always constrained compared to the USofA; which itself is constrained by various factors, money, politics and whatever else one can think.



I find it interesting that many make excuses for the Queen Elizabeth many shortcomings. Instead of talking about solutions for them.

As for what will they do? Likely, nothing and when attacked. They will be hit and with a great loss of life.......
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25122
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Dec 2020, 03:26

So how will a V-22 help them? This is just silly. As I mentioned the UK have their way of doing things which for obvious reasons is not the same as the USofA. Get over it. Make excuses for your own country and don't meddle with others.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7029
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Dec 2020, 04:06

spazsinbad wrote:So how will a V-22 help them? This is just silly. As I mentioned the UK have their way of doing things which for obvious reasons is not the same as the USofA. Get over it. Make excuses for your own country and don't meddle with others.


The UK are doing the Queen Elizabeth on the "cheap"....and yes the V-22 Osprey's would help. (a lot)


Nor, is it meddling to point out the shortcomings. Which, are obvious to all...... :(
Offline

zhangmdev

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 209
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post14 Dec 2020, 05:00

UK doesn't have that kind of money, so it has to improvise. Like landing Apache on the carrier. And the QE is big enough to store a Chinook without folding its rotors. Yes, that looks cheap, but a lot better than those nonexistent UK V-22s

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... abeth.html
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7029
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Dec 2020, 08:16

zhangmdev wrote:UK doesn't have that kind of money, so it has to improvise. Like landing Apache on the carrier. And the QE is big enough to store a Chinook without folding its rotors. Yes, that looks cheap, but a lot better than those nonexistent UK V-22s

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... abeth.html



The UK has the resources. Just that their Government has been reluctant to fund the Military adequately. Instead wanting to spend more and more on Social Programs.


That said, recently it was announced that more funding was forthcoming. Yet to what level and if any substantial amount will go to the Queen Elizabeth and her supporting Aircraft and Ships. Is very much a question mark at this stage....
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25122
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Dec 2020, 09:00

"The UK has the resources. Just that their Government has been reluctant to fund the Military adequately. Instead wanting to spend more and more on Social Programs...." How do you know all this? And why do you care? I want to know.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

noth

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2005, 14:16

Unread post15 Dec 2020, 02:00

Corsair1963 wrote:
noth wrote:
Or the USMC could get some for their gator carriers and pay for the development. Then maybe the UK might afford some. Italy and Spain have a similar requirement but are nowhere near able to pay for it. Australia, Japan and South Korea need them too. But it'll take USMC to get this ball rolling. Also Ospreys are bloody expensive to buy and operate and I think the RN are waiting for some UAV development instead. This has been debated for over a decade, the conclusion is always: no money.


The Royal Navy has no way to resupply the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers with spare P&W F135's. For their F-35B Lighting II's....plus no Tankers either. So, without the support of USN Carriers. Their abilities to project power will be somewhat limited.


The RFA Fort Victoria has the ability to resupply the carriers with F135 engines. No need for Ospreys there, although it'd be nice.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7029
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Dec 2020, 05:49

noth wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
noth wrote:
Or the USMC could get some for their gator carriers and pay for the development. Then maybe the UK might afford some. Italy and Spain have a similar requirement but are nowhere near able to pay for it. Australia, Japan and South Korea need them too. But it'll take USMC to get this ball rolling. Also Ospreys are bloody expensive to buy and operate and I think the RN are waiting for some UAV development instead. This has been debated for over a decade, the conclusion is always: no money.


The Royal Navy has no way to resupply the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers with spare P&W F135's. For their F-35B Lighting II's....plus no Tankers either. So, without the support of USN Carriers. Their abilities to project power will be somewhat limited.


The RFA Fort Victoria has the ability to resupply the carriers with F135 engines. No need for Ospreys there, although it'd be nice.


Hardly, an ideal solution....Plus, I am sure things come up all of the time. That you need spare or replacement parts for. You can't lug around every possible part within the Carrier Battle Group all of the time. Which, is likely why USN COD Aircraft are kept so busy resupplying fleet.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25122
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Dec 2020, 06:41

These RFAs are not shabby ships - just some capabilities noted below:
".. during 2017–2018, the ship [RFA Fort Victoria] underwent an extensive refit intended to allow her to support the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, and meet current tanker anti-pollution hull requirements upon her re-entry into service. Fort Victoria returned to service in November 2018.[24] In October 2020, she joined a nine-ship UK carrier strike group and performed her first manoeuvres with HMS Queen Elizabeth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Fort_Victoria_(A387)
&
"...“With both RFA Fort Victoria and a Tide-class [ https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/suppor ... s-tankers/ ] tanker by our side, HMS Queen Elizabeth and her F-35Bs will be able to strike from the sea at a time and place of our choosing, and remain on task for as long as the mission requires – true task group self-sustainability.” https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ier-strike
&
"...Other than refuelling RN and allied warships at sea, they have a number of secondary roles. As the Wave and Fort class have already demonstrated, these auxiliaries could operate independently on maritime security or humanitarian aid operations. The large flight deck can land a Chinook size helicopter, the ships are fitted with a suite of AGI visual landing aids and a dedicated flying control office (Flyco). The hangar can comfortably house a Merlin and a gantry crane is available, should the helicopter need a rotor head or engine change. There is a magazine and lift for helicopter-launched weapons and a small aviation detachment office and workshop. Plenty of spare accommodation is available for more than 40 RN, military or special forces personnel and there is a small medical complex with a 3-bed hospital ward...."
&
"...In high sea states or to save time, vertical replenishment (VERTREP) of solid stores by helicopter is an alternative option...."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post15 Dec 2020, 08:48

Corsair1963 wrote:
zhangmdev wrote:UK doesn't have that kind of money, so it has to improvise. Like landing Apache on the carrier. And the QE is big enough to store a Chinook without folding its rotors. Yes, that looks cheap, but a lot better than those nonexistent UK V-22s
...l

That said, recently it was announced that more funding was forthcoming. Yet to what level and if any substantial amount will go to the Queen Elizabeth and her supporting Aircraft and Ships. Is very much a question mark at this stage....

I think you overstate your case Corsair. The QE can and does support the Chinooks. As of 2018 the RAF was supposed to be getting (and I think they did) 14 CH-47G special forces versions. These have in flight refueling capability from C130 types.

The Chinook's internal dimensions are greater than the Osprey, and it has demonstrated carrying weights greater than the "4,000 lbs more than the v-22" spec weights.

While range and speed are such that I too would rather have the Ospreys, it is NOT true that the Brits are incapable of the missions you point out. It just takes a little different mission planning ... C-130's refueling, lilly pad hops for range, and a bit more air time for 100 knots less speed. But the QE with Chinooks can do the mission. The AEW is not ideal, but the truth is that for that, the F-35 is as good or better than any options, including making the top of the line E2D not "necessarily mission required" by the USN itself, if it has a flight of F-35's out for ISR.

Chinooks served the Falkland fleet from Ascension island with lily pad hops. And the one surviving in theatre Chinook (from Conveyer sinking) did outstanding work, that any Osprey crew would envy.

MHO,
BP

PS I agree that it could be argued that with V-22 Ospreys, the Atlantic Conveyor might have avoided sinking by being further out at sea, but there are a lot of things like that comparing 1980's with 2020. And the single "Bravo November" soldiered on quite well.
Offline

aussiebloke

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post15 Dec 2020, 14:05

noth wrote:
The RFA Fort Victoria has the ability to resupply the carriers with F135 engines.


Not so if I am understanding this report correctly:

Rolls Royce has developed a completely new fast, high-capacity Heavy Replenishment at Sea (HRAS) system that can transfer 25 loads per hour of up to 6 tonnes...... HRAS is therefore particularly important for the QEC and the original specification required the system be capable of transferring heavy and bulky items such as packaged Storm Shadow missile or a complete F135 jet engine for an F-35....... RFA Fort Victoria will emerge from this refit able to transfer stores to the carrier but will still be limited to 2-tonne transfers, primarily because she does not have the internal equipment to handle such large loads. Only when the new purpose-built Fleet Solid Support ships (FSS) fitted with HRAS rigs and mechanised stores handling systems arrive in the mid-2020s, will the full 6-tonnes be possible.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/rfa-fo ... -carriers/

As an aside since the above article came out it appears that the Fleet Solid Support ships’ “HRAS capability has been deleted as it is hard to justify the additional expense.”
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/fleet- ... n-britain/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25122
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Dec 2020, 16:20

An OTHER NAN story: https://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodl ... lden-mile/
ANOTHERie: https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/04/1 ... out-v-22s/
ASLO (yes I know) story below found here earlier: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=23690&p=376241&hilit=NAWCAD+Cavallaro#p376241
NAWCAD Cargo Lab Refines Skid for F-35 Engine Power Module [2 page PDF of article attached below]
Summer 2017 Emanuel Cavallaro - NAN Naval Aviation News

"...The team also reduced the weight of the skid significantly, dropping the total weight of the [F135 power] module with the skid to approximately 7,100 pounds...."

Source: http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... 17_web.pdf (5.6Mb)
Attachments
F135 Power Module V-22 NAN-Summer2017_web.pd pp2.pdf
(228.97 KiB) Downloaded 826 times
Last edited by spazsinbad on 15 Dec 2020, 16:32, edited 2 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests