No plans AFAIK
Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates
- Thread starter neil
- Start date
The requirement for an organic air-refueller is less critical with STOVL jets which don't bolt during landings. IIRC that was a complicating issue with the F-35C operating off of CVFs.
For the meantime, if the need is to extend range, then the current A2A refuelling options come into play including USAF, USN and USMC assets in a likely coalition scenario.
For the meantime, if the need is to extend range, then the current A2A refuelling options come into play including USAF, USN and USMC assets in a likely coalition scenario.
t68
Well-Known Member
Whilst as you say it's not a critical element at this stage, but as time goes on and the CVF gets used to its potencial having the ability to incorparate AAR will give mission planning staff options that might not be avalible. The Buccaneer overflight of Bleize in 72? at the limit of there endurance comes to mind
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree on that, but the conops will be vastly diffrent.
USMC F35 will be the jab, F35C carrier operations will be for the K'O
UK carrier ops will be looking the T'KO
The USN and RN have begun exploring how the two çountries' carrier forces may conduct joint operations. The F-35B mirrors the capabilities of the C-variant with only a slight reduction in range and internal weapons carriage. Interoperability provides flexibility for mission planners and should result in a powerful synergy.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/us-navy-vice-admiral-shows-commitment-to-combined-carrier-strike
US Navy Vice Admiral shows commitment to combined carrier strike
One of the highest-ranking women in the US Armed Forces has met with her Royal Navy counterparts to plan future joint carrier operations.
During a visit to HMS Queen Elizabeth in March, Vice Admiral Nora Tyson and her team of US personnel discussed how the UK and US carriers would work together on combined carrier tasks.
Vice Admiral Tyson is the first woman to command a US Navy battle group.
The US and the UK signed a Statement of Intent in 2012, which set out their commitment to combined carrier strike once HMS Queen Elizabeth becomes operational.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/us-navy-vice-admiral-shows-commitment-to-combined-carrier-strike
US Navy Vice Admiral shows commitment to combined carrier strike
One of the highest-ranking women in the US Armed Forces has met with her Royal Navy counterparts to plan future joint carrier operations.
During a visit to HMS Queen Elizabeth in March, Vice Admiral Nora Tyson and her team of US personnel discussed how the UK and US carriers would work together on combined carrier tasks.
Vice Admiral Tyson is the first woman to command a US Navy battle group.
The US and the UK signed a Statement of Intent in 2012, which set out their commitment to combined carrier strike once HMS Queen Elizabeth becomes operational.
According to US sources, the first 2 P-8s could be in the UK by 2017 as two USN production slots have supposedly been switched to the RAF.
There's also an interim plan to base 2 USN P-8s in the UK with UK crews to help build up experience.
Britain's New Strategic Defense and Security Review Draws Praise, Caution
This article also phrases the 'additional' F-35 squadron as just being 809 NAS forming earlier than planned. That jives with the 2025 picture. There'll undoubtedly be more squadrons (due to the 138 number) but by 2025 there'll be enough for 2 carrier deployable squadrons, an OCU and OEU.
Typhoon numbers are good, T1s are good for QRA out until later in the decade when E-Scan and Meteor comes online. Then it'll increasingly become fleets within fleets and only 2 squadrons worth would be more cut-able in 2020 - 2025.
Would sooner have a T3B buy to replace the T1s however.
There's also an interim plan to base 2 USN P-8s in the UK with UK crews to help build up experience.
Britain's New Strategic Defense and Security Review Draws Praise, Caution
This article also phrases the 'additional' F-35 squadron as just being 809 NAS forming earlier than planned. That jives with the 2025 picture. There'll undoubtedly be more squadrons (due to the 138 number) but by 2025 there'll be enough for 2 carrier deployable squadrons, an OCU and OEU.
Typhoon numbers are good, T1s are good for QRA out until later in the decade when E-Scan and Meteor comes online. Then it'll increasingly become fleets within fleets and only 2 squadrons worth would be more cut-able in 2020 - 2025.
Would sooner have a T3B buy to replace the T1s however.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The Mirror is whining about incompatibility between P-8s and RAF A330 tankers. Is AAR even a requirement for patrolling the UK coastal areas? Anyone know if the present system can be converted to the boom option?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-order
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-order
The A330 can certainly be fitted with a boom. Australia operates boom-equipped A330s, France, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Singapore & S. Korea have ordered them, & the last I heard Qatar & a consortium of the Netherlands, Norway & Poland were negotiating to buy them. The UK is an oddity in having bought only hose-equipped A330s, & even odder in not fitting probes (which shouldn't be too difficult, with the main issue being placing, where the receptacle is badly placed for fitting a probe directly over it) to its aircraft fitted for receiving from booms.
Retrofitting some of the UK aircraft with booms would be entirely possible.
Retrofitting some of the UK aircraft with booms would be entirely possible.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I sort of assumed a conversion would be possible. Do you feel it is even necessary as I assume the patrol area will be reasonably close to the UK or allied airfields for most missions?
AirTanker even offered to foot the bill to convert the 5 airframes which aren't in the core fleet to have a boom, their intention being that chartering out boom AAR services is more profitable than using them as civilian airliners. We didn't take it up for some reason, but I don't know enough of the guts of the decision.
The thing is they've been named a few times as being important contributors to the UK carrier group's protection so it'd be pretty important there considering the operating range of the group. Plus if they're being used as ISR assets overland then it's another useful capability.
It's just a pretty useful capability to have, I suppose we can just borrow capacity from the US if they're about but IMO a now our own fleet requiring boom services with the addition of the P-8 will gro to a size where really we should be able provide some sort of capability. That being said, it would lead to fleets within fleets.
But it's all effectively one fleet. Another basket doesn't make it operationally and functionally any different in my opinion, it's another refuelling assembly true, but there's no real difference, not compared to adding a boom which would require a different training and spares pipeline to get an effective capability.
There is a different spares pipeline & some different training, albeit both much less than for a boom. And that's for a very small difference where one can ask what the point is. Saving a little (very little) money? While a boom . . . . we could refuel allied aircraft (& sometimes get paid for it) & some of our own aircraft that are currently refuellable only by tankers belonging to other countries - but they can't even use that capability because we have no way to train them for it, because we don't have tankers to train with.
Note that we'll soon have neighbours just across the Channel we could share spares with, & not just the French.
Refuelling C-17s is probably a marginal capability, not worth bothering with on its own. E-3s - maybe useful. P-8s, though - could be very valuable.
Note that we'll soon have neighbours just across the Channel we could share spares with, & not just the French.
Refuelling C-17s is probably a marginal capability, not worth bothering with on its own. E-3s - maybe useful. P-8s, though - could be very valuable.
The Australian tankers have a boom & underwing pods, not a fuselage-mounted hose, according to the RAAF. But I don't know whether that's because they're mutually exclusive, or just an RAAF choice. It's getting F-35A, so its fighter fleet will mostly be boom & receptacle only in the future.
Hawk under use?
I have wondered for a while whether we under use the Hawk aircraft.
With the RAF stretched with operations over Iraq/Syria, Uk/falklands, perpetual operations in the Baltic.
Could an argument be made to make better use of the Hawk fleet, the time will be on us shortly to replace the T1s.
I'd propose a squadron not dissimilar to the Fleet Air Arm aggressor squadron with investments made in an air to surface (say brimstone) capacity. I understand the t1s had a basic air to air capability. So that Hawks could supplement operations.
For example the x6 Typhoon at Akrotiri could instead be x6 of this Hawk. With Hawks supplenting Tornados like Typhoons did in Libya.
The benefit being:
-the cost per flying hour would be significantly less.
-allow for Typhoon to deploy in greater numbers or for a longer period to the Baltic (eastern Europe) or on op red flag in greater numbers, fly the flag at 5 powers ops. Furthering British reach.
-reduce airframe fatigue on ops that arguably do not require a 4th gen capability.
I suppose almost becoming the OPV/warrior of the RAF.
Sellers
I have wondered for a while whether we under use the Hawk aircraft.
With the RAF stretched with operations over Iraq/Syria, Uk/falklands, perpetual operations in the Baltic.
Could an argument be made to make better use of the Hawk fleet, the time will be on us shortly to replace the T1s.
I'd propose a squadron not dissimilar to the Fleet Air Arm aggressor squadron with investments made in an air to surface (say brimstone) capacity. I understand the t1s had a basic air to air capability. So that Hawks could supplement operations.
For example the x6 Typhoon at Akrotiri could instead be x6 of this Hawk. With Hawks supplenting Tornados like Typhoons did in Libya.
The benefit being:
-the cost per flying hour would be significantly less.
-allow for Typhoon to deploy in greater numbers or for a longer period to the Baltic (eastern Europe) or on op red flag in greater numbers, fly the flag at 5 powers ops. Furthering British reach.
-reduce airframe fatigue on ops that arguably do not require a 4th gen capability.
I suppose almost becoming the OPV/warrior of the RAF.
Sellers
A4kscooter
Member
CV22 Osprey for SAS
The Mail on Sunday has reported the UK will either purchase or lease CV22 Osprey to be used to transport SAS
Revealed, a new British weapon in the war on terror: 'Transformer' heli-planes to scramble SAS to fight IS in the UK* | Daily Mail Online
If true it would a great addition to UK forces, in addition to this role would a great asset if flown off the 2 x carriers.
The Mail on Sunday has reported the UK will either purchase or lease CV22 Osprey to be used to transport SAS
Revealed, a new British weapon in the war on terror: 'Transformer' heli-planes to scramble SAS to fight IS in the UK* | Daily Mail Online
If true it would a great addition to UK forces, in addition to this role would a great asset if flown off the 2 x carriers.
Last edited:
It's the mail reporting on the SAS so I'll believe it when it flies overhead...
Sorry mate its the mail and the article is typical of the mail as others have said I'll believe it when it actually happens.