The UK Carrier Strike capability is nearing a critical milestone. Full Operating Capability (FOC) for the F-35B should be achieved during the forthcoming CSG25 deployment. Here we look at latest progress with the jet and the wider carrier strike capability development.
Lightning FOC
According to the annual Government Major Projects Portfolio report published in January 2025, FOC for F-35 was progressing but was rated ‘amber’, indicating risks in meeting the deadline. The specialised nature of the airframe, which combines complex stealth coatings, vertical lift hardware, and high-voltage electronic systems, places exceptional demands on maintainers. Efforts to boost retention and attract qualified personnel have been launched, but results will take time to materialise.
FOC for the F-35B is defined as the ability to deploy two squadrons simultaneously to separate global theatres. The two existing frontline squadrons, RAF-badged 617 and RN-badged 809 Naval Air Squadron must be fully trained, equipped, and certified to operate from either carrier or land base. An RAF statement published this week implies FOC will be achieved: “Operation Highmast is poised to be a landmark event, with plans to declare full operational capability for both the jets and the Carrier Strike Group within the year”.
The two front-line units are based at RAF Marham together with 207 Squadron operational conversion unit (OCU), while 17 Squadron conducts test and evaluation (TEU) work from Edwards AFB in California. Although with many caveats, the Lightning Force is maturing slowly. 617 Squadron is now commanded by a Royal Marine, Lt Col Mike Carty, the first RM to lead a fighter squadron in the UK. 809 Squadron which recommissioned in December 2023 is commanded by Cdr Mick Smith and will deploy, having declared Initial Operating Capability.
The F-35B’s integration with the Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile will mark a significant leap in the aircraft’s lethality. Flight tests carried out at NAS Pax River during November 2024 have confirmed the successful carriage and release parameters of Meteor from the F-35s internal weapons bay, paving the way for future full integration. Once fielded on F-35, this combination will offer unmatched reach and kill probability in contested airspace.
The Meteor integration process is closely tied to the F-35 Block 4 upgrade, which includes the Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) hardware suite. This upgrade is necessary to support Meteor and the SPEAR-3 precision stand-off missile, but delays in the software to accompany the TR-3 development have impacted the overall timeline for these integrations. F-35 must fly without Meteor or SPEAR-3, probably until 2030, a scandalous situation impacting the power and reach of the whole carrier programme but the MoD has little power to accelerate progress.
At present, the Lighting force has 35 jets and deliveries of the remaining jets that make up the first tranche of 48 are expected to conclude by the end of this year. In parallel, discussions are underway for a second batch of 27 aircraft, subject to the decisions of the now much-delayed SDR. If secured, this would bring the future fleet to 74 aircraft by the early 2030s. A third operational squadron is also planned, though its identity and formation timeline remain undisclosed.
Crowsnest debacle
As a cornerstone of Carrier Strike, the F-35B Lightning is expected to operate seamlessly with the QEC aircraft carriers and the CROWSNEST Airborne Surveillance and Control System (ASaC). Any delay in one element risks derailing the coordinated progress required across all three pillars of the capability.
It remains current MoD policy to withdraw the Merlin-based Crowsnest ASaC at the end of 2029 as has been the plan since 2015. The system has not yet even achieved FOC as a result of the disastrous design and procurement process that has been ongoing over a decade. The original price tag was £269M but by December 2023, £425.7 million had been spent with costs still rising. If and when FOC will be achieved remains uncertain, although the system will be deployed as an integral part of the CSG25 deployment, whatever its limitations. Details of the performance shortfalls are classified but are believed to be primarily software related. Integrating the new ASaC system with the existing Merlin Mk2 avionics has also been challenging.
To compound the colossal expense, its is planned the system will only serve for 5 years, although this will depend on a very rapid procurement of a UAS-based alternative which is supposed to be in service by 2030. To procure a novel solution, test, and integrate with the carriers before the end of 2029 appears highly optimistic. Either ASaC capability would be gapped, or more likely, it will be extended in service to allow time for the replacement to mature.
Dispensing with CROWSNEST will, at least, allow the modest fleet of 30 Merlin Mk2 helicopters to concentrate fully on their core ASW role. The Merlins are going be extended in service until 2040 and the airframes will also have to cycle through the factory at Yeovil for substantial refurbishment (possibly including new engines), which will reduce overall availability in the early-mid-2030s.
Demonstrating the intention to dispense with CROWSNEST as soon as possible, the MoD recently published a Request for Information (RFI) inviting industry input on potential replacements. Although not specified in the RFI, the solution is expected to be based on an uncrewed air vehicle. The replacement system is expected to meet the same requirement for persistent 24-hour surveillance with advanced detection capabilities against both surface and airborne threats, including anti-ship missiles. The major difference is that data collected by the sensors will have to be sent back to the carrier or shore station to maintain a human in the loop, even if more of the analysis is automated. Initial entry into service is anticipated between 2030 and 2035 in a project with a very broad cost envelope estimated between £0.5 and £1.5 billion.
The ideal solution would be a long-endurance fixed-wing UAS that could attain higher altitudes than rotary-wing platforms. Aircraft such as the General Atomics MQ1C Mojave or MQ-9B Maritime Protector Remotely Piloted Air System (RPAS) would probably be the optimum type of solution but vehicles of this size would require substantial modifications to the carriers to fit small-medium size catapults and arrestor gear. It is far from certain the RN will be properly funded to fulfil its ambitions for the carriers and a RWUAS platform such as the Leonardo Proteus might be more a more affordable option.
FOC for the wider Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) was due to be declared by March 2026, although official sources have gone very quiet on this. This will certify the ability to deploy a fully integrated Carrier Strike Group, composed of an embarked air wing of 24 F-35Bs, CROWSNEST, supporting warships and auxiliaries, and a command staff able to operate independently for extended periods. The lack of solid support ships, surface escorts and missing integration of Meteor missile and SPEAR-3 stand-off weapons on F-35 means that the original ambition for full CEPP cannot be met next year.
On a more positive note, carrier strike capability is slowly improving, the forthcoming deployment will see HMS Prince of Wales sail with by far the most powerful air group the RN has put to sea since the 1970s, outmatched only by US carriers (and the French carrier, depending on capability metrics).
I read this morning on Portsmouth news that RFA Argus is going to join the CSG
Did you really mean MQ-8B as a Crowsnest alternative, an out of date Fire Scout? MQ-9B STOL Protector, surely. Even would be debateable without cats and traps to work sufficient weight, but then with catapults there would better alternatives.
Best right now would be half a dozen new Merlins with AESA radar and proper comms links, to allow C2 to be handled off-board in the same way it would with a UAV.
Apologies, yes MQ-9B Protector / Sea Guardian
Too large to STOVL.
MQ 9 would fit fine on the carriers
Not according to the manufacturer and it won’t need cats and traps either.
A New Short-Field Advantage: MQ-9B STOL | General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc.
So we have these already in the RAF and they just need the wing kits which can be done in a day wonder if the cost of a couple of kits would be within the present request for information or perhaps the manufacturer would like to try one on the planned deployment.
See if you can guess whether the RAF Protector variant (which is a mallet some terrorists drone) has the requisite sensors and data links for an AEW asset.
Then see if the airframe, its sensors and comms links are hardened against shipboard EM fields. That’s before we get to whether it can use F44 (vice F34) or indeed whether the airframe and its components are specified to withstand a maritime salt water environment.
Finally, see how much of the flightdeck the airframe sweeps during launch and recovery (including provision for airborne scatter) and what that does to the safe parking area.
All distinctly non-trivial.
Have you read the GAAS advert for the short take off version? It would appear that they have a version that is capable and sized to take off and land on the USA LPHDs so I would think that a logical step would be to trial one.
If that was a successful you would look at what kit it could loft and procure what you need for a proven high endurance platform.
As military kit I would assume that it is EMP hardened just like the kit was when I served.
I do not say it is trivial I say that in the time scale available it is worth a small trial to test the veracity of the advert.
+1
Quite agree.
The bigger issues is how much disruption would it cause to sufficiently clear the decks to allow this style/size of drone to take off and land. I may be that the time taken to operate this sort of AEW cuts down the number of offensive sorties to much to be worth while.
The stol version has a smaller span but thicker chord, folding wing than the standard MQ9b. With an endurance of greater than 24hrs there would not be many take offs and landings per day, so it’s unlikely to interfere with other operations.
Other than requiring most of the deck park to be cleared. Which is about as much interference as something extremely inconvenient.
“Advert”. The clue is in the name. They’ve been in and out of Navy Command for the last couple of years pushing this. Resulting in the brief trial on an empty PWLS last year. Operating that thing safely on a flight deck with other aircraft is a very different proposition.
EMP proofing is not the same as being able to operate in the complex EM environment on a flight deck, where you’re in very close proximity to high power radar and comms emitters. See some of the limitations on Apache for details…..
So the us navy command are not interested in trying it? Is that because they have lots of expensive options they can use.
I guess that does not necessarily apply to the UK who have historically been the navy that tried innovation like angled flight decks and ski jumps.
it looks to me like a possible low cost option, the only negative for me is the type of Radar that it can loft. It would seem sensible to ask the company trial one if nothing else you would increase our knowledge and who knows what radar the boffins have in the pipeline.
The USN have the E2. Which also includes 2-3 systems operators for picture/battle management. They don’t need this.
The RN are looking at it because Crowsnest has had a piss poor delivery project and also because there’s a couple of newish threats that they’re worried about. Which is making them grasp anything that looks different to a Merlin/Crowsnest.
Doesn’t mean it’ll be any better, as a cursory look at radar power requirements and deck operation impact shows. That’s before you get to the airframe mods to make it safe in the maritime environment.
It’s hard to trial a computer generated advert on a real ship. In 2022 GA announced they were going to develop it, but I haven’t come across any information about a real flight of a real STOL drone. Nor have I seen any dates during which the STOL kit will become available. Have you heard anything?
I agree it will be logical to trial it, when there’s something to trial.
Real flights by GA drones like this one ?
https://www.twz.com/mojave-drone-flies-from-british-aircraft-carrier
The twz item says “Earlier this year, the U.K. Royal Navy revealed details of its plans to fit its two carriers with assisted launch systems and recovery gear, enabling operations by a wider variety of fixed-wing uncrewed aircraft and, potentially, conventional takeoff and landing crewed types. This effort is known as Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF).”
Is this true?
No. It was a RFI, not ‘reveal details of plans’.
They are merely ‘studying’ something
I don’t have much else to go off, but if MQ9s can operate (not without risks) near Crimea or over Yemen, they ought to be fine patrolling thousands of miles of open ocean, surely? And there isn’t much of a jamming risk from submarines.
Data links I have no idea on, but they manage to fly it and view video, SAR and IR outputs from the current SATCOM system from thousands of miles away and GA-ASI have a specialist communications pod on the market.
Carrier ops I’m worried about, those massive wings look like the thing could be blown away in a gale and I don’t trust a drone to fold its wings fast enough on deck. But again, GA think they can fly them off an LPH and the USMC believe them, so what do I know?
“Carrier ops I’m worried about, those massive wings look like the thing could be blown away in a gale”
This is a major issue in fixed wing carrier ops with flow speed landings. Which is why slam down is necessary so there is sufficient down force on the wheels.
“and I don’t trust a drone to fold its wings fast enough on deck.”
Well that isn’t the biggest problem as it has to do the difficult bit with them fully deployed. The bit where £2Bn of aircraft are on the sun deck.
“Carrier ops I’m worried about, those massive wings look like the thing could be blown away in a gale and I don’t trust a drone to fold its wings fast enough on deck. But again, GA think they can fly them off an LPH and the USMC believe them, so what do I know?
“But again, GA think they can fly them off an LPH and the USMC believe them, so what do I know?”
One thing to try them quite another for them to live on board and routinely fly.
In the hand out photos what else is visible on deck?
Nothing on deck because it was initial capability trials
Do you mean the GA CGI photos?
They tend to have quite crowded decks for interest, but in most of them the port wing overhangs the deck to maintain clearance. I’ll add another post with images, so that this one doesn’t get held up.
Sorry, for some reason these came through out of sync.
The clearances look all wrong to me. I’m not an expert but I have spent a little time on the Invincibles so I would say I have some exposure to the issues to hand.
Take off and landing are different issues.
In a way an issue with the ski jump being centred and not wider. If it was wider then the take off ‘runway’ could be offset away from the island.
However the bigger problem is landing as there is no possibility of a go around. If anything goes wrong the drone is in the drink in an uncontrolled roll off the side. So you end up using the rear deck park as a landing runway so there is enough length. But you have to centre so you can do a go around – assuming that the ski jump doesn’t take the landing gear off the drone…..
So you are back to creating an angled runway and adding the sponson for it and therefore half a Project Ark Royal.
This is why nothing is happening with Ark Royal other than power point – money and lack of clarity on tech direction. No point in chopping up perfectly good carriers that can operate F35B at massive costs.
So VTOL drones are where AEW and logistics are headed.
If you are after CATOBAR drones better off, in my view, building a cheapo drone carrier to perfect it and then transfer that to QEC once all the bugs are ironed out. This should be a merchant conversion with a limited life span say 10 years.
Stobar should be cheaper than catobar. In the next french carrier project, 3 Emals catapults = same cost than the carrier whithout catapults, and she will be a nuclear carrier, which is anyway required to use 3 Emals.
In another words, the Marine Nationale could get 2 carriers stobar for one catobar for the same budget.
When we see Indians using Rafale Marine with stobar carriers, it might be an idea.
Then what about the Hawkeye?
Did anyone try to use Hawkeye with skijump?
Hawkeye suffers from a relatively low power margin.
It has awful defensibility.
The problem here is the cost of modifying the carriers ‘to do something different’ and it has to work not be an experiment.
Careful what you wish for. STOBAR has two massive drawbacks. The launch payload is very limited and the impact on safe parking area is massive. Which is why the Indian, Russian and Chinese carriers can only launch packages of less than a dozen at a time.
So no special arrangements, still using the sponson for a deck park, but the MQ9 (visible between the islands) is weirdly shifted towards the starboard side.
But that is a CGI?
Sorry, what did you mean by hand out photos?
The deck was completely clear for the Mojave test, if that’s what you mean.
More gaps inbound.
Call the new National Armaments Director.
How do the Italians and Japanese plan to do AEW from their carriers? Would be good to have a comparison to other VTOL carrier nations. Nicely written article showing the slow but present progress of the air wing.
I’d suspect a joint program given Tempest?
There doesn’t seem to be a MOTS item that ticks the boxes.
It would be fascinating to know what went awry with Crows Nest.
Or US America class. Or Aussies which have no carrier.
The USMC don’t need one. It is the glaring gap as we are finding out.
For sure? They cant always rely on 35s as AEW or E-2Ds for littorals.
Agreed. Joint AEW with vtol navies.
The Italians tried helicopter and failed. They announced they’d repurpose their AW101s from the programme last year. I suppose the Japanese will support from land as will the USMC. There is definitely room in the market for a shared programme, but I wouldn’t expect it to produce much until 2040.
I wonder if something could be based on the Turkish Kizilelma? At the moment it only has 1.5 tone payload and needs arrestors, which isn’t ideal, but with a twin engine version and perhaps Rolls-Royce engines it should have the power and the lift. It’s half the length of a GlobalEye, but perhaps a custom S-band antenna could be fitted. It’s not much shorter than an Embraer P600 and there’s an AEW version of that.
I’m sorry but that sounds like making a whole new aircraft that may not even work. If we want a solution in the next 5 years it’s gonna have to be something in production or close to it
Yes. It’s very much making a whole new aircraft, and I think 2040 would be a more reasonable target date. I don’t believe we are capable of producing a useful organic carrier AEW system in much less time than that. We may want a solution in 5 years, but I’m not holding my breath. Are you?
Based on your in depth aircraft design experience no doubt!
The 5 year thing just isn’t going to happen. The capability could be gaped, but much more likely in my opinion, the Merlin’s will be doing AEW till at least 2035.
maybe this will be clarified in the defence review. From a political standpoint it’ll still be easy (and true) for the government to blame the delay on the previous government not funding the proposed replacement program properly.
Hang in there.
Drones with the required payload are being developed and are not that far out.
The payload doesn’t quite exist *but* that is a bench design that can be done to fit the payload module size and weight.
This is where risk is good in that the AEW bit can be tested and designed in parallel with the truck. The AEW bit can be tested and hauled around underslung for pre qualification testing.
There doesn’t need to be a little bit more of a sense of ‘let’s see what can be sensibly improvised with what we have and then spiral’.
The reality is that you can get most of these systems running in a test state pretty quickly.
The problems often start once the thing is packaged and has complicated software. Then modifying the core of the software becomes very hard as the outer modules and GUI break with every mod.
Which is what I was suggesting further up the thread with regard to the MQ 9B STOL basically it is worth a small trial with the aircraft to test the suitability of the platform on a carrier.
The problem is, as NaB has discussed up thread, is there is a lot to deal with before you get something that works from a big deck.
Then you have the wingspan problem and the risks to the 18 [of the 24*] F35B that are likely topside. So a mere £2Bn of planes at risk from the AEW drone having an off day.
*some % always being fixed.
I think that is why aircraft carriers were designed with hangars.
Starting with HMS Argus / 1918.
The aircraft are safer down below with a busy flight deck.
Is there any exploration of an AEW podded or platform that could go onto a F35B? Maybe a two seater, un-manned? I don’t know how far they got with the Harrier Blackjack program but I guess size and power available are still the limiting factors. And what’s happened to Taranis, any AEW options there?
The F35 in all its variants acts as a mini AEW platform because of the hardware and software 360 deg capability. Goes much higher than a helicopter of course.
Long range offensive capability is something a E-2 or a Crowsnest doesnt have on patrol
Harrier AEW was looked at in and post ‘82 – problem was time in station and general smallness as well as one operator. The two seater didn’t have the power margin to do anything g useful in that regard. Also you couldn’t arm them with an AEW fit so super vulnerable. Simply didn’t work by adding up weight, volume and power requirements.
F35B fundamentally does have the ISTAR capabilities built into it.
However, biting up flying hours doing race tracks perpetually would be a struggle even with 36 frames on board. In a threat environment you would run CAP but otherwise you are running into 100 hour inspections and the hangar then gets full and the sun deck empty!
No idea about TANARIS. UK never properly got into that aspect of drones. Mainly because of the tiny numbers RAF was buying and flogging to death.
https://www.twz.com/mojave-drone-flies-from-british-aircraft-carrier
Done and done
The Italian AEW was on the cheap. Very soon they realised that just naval search antenna span is not enough with very low altitude discrimination since it was still in the bottom of Merlin fuselage, so antenna height could not be increased.
I think the Italian radar guys are better than that!
The thing indeed detected missiles, but did not gave reliable altitude.
I think the Italians have a Merlin with AESA plate on both sides. However I bo not think it has been that successful.
It do not have.
Italian Merlin was just an augmented sea search radar in bottom fuselage.
The Air Wing may be getting there but the lack of available escort ships or stores ships is also an issue that needs to be fixed for ‘Carrier Strike’ to be a full capability.
To be fair the lack of escorts is being fixed by building 13 new ones.
The stores ship is also being fixed with three of those.
We can decry the past and learn lessons but we can only make the right moves in the present.
Those issues were realistically on a trajectory to be fixed some years ago.
Nah, not really fixed yet, just playing a long game of Catchup, It’ll be many years before anything is fixed.
It’ll be 2031 at least before we have more available escorts than we do right now. Most of the T45 works will be complete and most (if not all) T31s in service with 2-3 T26s and the first FSS. Hopefully RFA will be able to crew their existing vessels by then too.
What project will deliver the 3 stores ships?
Will they be RFA units?
Hopefully built locally.
Try Google?
Maybe try H&W?
Maybe even just try reading the back articles on this site – it has been well covered.
Unfortunately you are spot on.
Grey moment at lunchtime — surely that is allowed?
Wiki level stuff — pretty slow surely we should be working to 22 knots?
Also larger than the tankers — news of the Panama Canal upgrade must have made it to the MOD.
Interesting to know the spec of her cargo handling capabilities — 10 ton loads if required?
How much stuff she can ship in an hour?
Split between pre-packed units and break bulk into individual pallets?
Special Forces boat door — surely some mistake?
Although in saying that the class with a roof would be very useful.
Who needs a hangar now that the policy is live on the roof.
Big idea / two bridges — navigation and supply.
That should help to improve the look of the thing.
Funny your “grey moments” seem to encompass all of your question riddled haphazard posts..
Yes. Works for ‘The Chase’ full time on questions ?
Stop being sensible, you know how some love to whinge on here…
So many challenges many depemdent on US tech and equioment. Nothing bought via DSCA for years.
Not to be confused with “Full Carrier Operating Capability”….. That’s some decades off yet.
Fly Navy!!! Slow but steady progress in F35 capability!!
NL — you are a brave man or a masochist to put so much failure in the one article.
CSG25 — what are we packing?
Posh bombs and ASRAAM for the F35s — is that it?
Crowsnest — what radar units are involved?
Surprised that we still seem to be using the Sea King bodge architecture of 1982.
Thimble style unit hung off the side and turned through 90 degrees.
Outsider looking in — people should be sacked for this shambles.
Plus the Merlins are now joining the Triggers Broom gravy train.
New engines in the 2030’s — out of service 2040 — surely not !?!
What is the going rate for a new Merlin anyway — base spec without the ASW kit?
Merlins are still getting built as Leonardo are pitching them to Norway, but don’t know the price.
F35s will have AMRAAM as well as ASRAAM and Paveway IV
F35B has no gun – short sighted?
Very.
Not really
No, the internal gun on F35A barely has any ammo.
The F35B and C gun pods carry own ammo, 220 rounds
The AV-8B had 300 rounds. The RAF GR7 had the pod but didnt have a gun in it.
Why bother to post nonsense without research? Even a lazy 2 minute research effort would show that the F35 gun is a joke and nobody wants it. Never mind the fact that a gun on a 5th gen fighter is a bit of an oxymoron.
Well, lazy research indicates that the USMC uses the gun pod on the F-35B, and the USN and USMC have it for the “C” as well. It isn’t perfect, but it is available and already integrated. It could prove useful for ground attack and anti-drone use. Why not buy what is already available and integrated for the F-35B? A bird in the hand and all that. If the RN/RAF bought the pod, they would find uses for it. The Harrier had podded guns and no one questioned their usefulness.
Harrier was a CAS platform, arguably the best in the world.
Not a Meteor slinging SEAD beast, which is what it will be by the time we buy any gun pods.
I fully agree that with Meteor the F-35B will be a superior air to air platform (it honestly already is with AMRAAM), and SEAD capabilities will improve over time. But I also realize the F-35B is the only CAS platform available to the QEs, and will very likely be used as such. The gun pod might not be perfect for CAS, but it could be a useful tool in the overall kit.
Exposing a stealth fighter that can launch standoff weapons to MANPADs is just plain irresponsible.
SPEAR handles most armoured vehicles from 100km away, and there’s no point compromising stealth to do a gun run on infantry.
The RAF Harriers ( GR5-9) never had their gun ‘pods’ cleared for operational use.
Edit. The pods were fitted but had no guns
Weird
Goes to show that even on an aircraft operating right on top of the front lines, guns weren’t considered all that important.
Harrier GR7 with ground attack role etc never had any guns *fitted*, why should the F-35B in service now add the gun pod ?
Perhaps your “lazy research” would have told you that the gun is wildly inaccurate and almost useless after years of tinkering and millions spent. Why would we even contemplate such a useless purchase other than to play video games.
I strongly suspect the pod works better now after those years of tinkering and millions spent. I just don’t understand you argument. the USMC and USN have already paid for the development and gone through the hard knocks. It has been seen to deploy on Bs from LHDs/LHAs and Cs on CVNs. While it’s not a primary system, it is available, and probably quite useful in given circumstances where you might not want to use a Paveway. I hear a lot of complaining and conspiracy theories about weapons the F-35B doesn’t have yet, while other systems are available now and have been overlooked.
I appreciate that you strongly suspect. However, the strong desire of the USAF to retire their A10s against Congressional insistence, strongly suggests what the USAF thinks of guns on planes!
The A-10 as a bomb truck was its main use. Those straight wings could carry heavy load
Why would you expose a stealth fighter to visual i.d. and shoot down? ‘Available’ doesn’t mean ‘useful’. What next? Dropping hand grenades from the cockpit because we could?
See the attached article;
https://defence-industry.eu/general-atomics-showcases-airborne-laser-weapon-on-mq-9b-seaguardian-at-sea-air-space-2025/
Guns on planes are yesterdays news.
OMG — sensible Sam has entered the building.
Doing stuff that might come come in handy later — not sure that is what the MOD wants to hear.
Fire prevention vs fire fighting?
One saves lives another makes the news — MOD PR vibe suggests news minutes is everything.
Eh, blame the RAF.
Nope, something is seriously wrong if the F35 ends-up in gun-range of a target.
And there is an external gun pod available, but not being bought by many.
A gun on a stealth fighter is as useful as ‘T**s on a Bull”
Thanks — now carrying three F35 things that go bang,
Not quite sure about the need to do weapon assembly work on the boat.
I fear the insurance folk have gotten involved and they want an easy life.
Merlin — cost will be eye watering I’m sure.
Does Yeovil build anything new now or is it all remanufacture?
Wildcat /Merlin
The AW149 fuselage, transmission is largely built there too
When was the last Merlin built at Yeovil?
Wildcat vs Trigger’s Broom — Discus …
Convoluted development with build costs that would choke a horse.
Not sure it will keep the factory in overtime.
Wildcat vs Ship of Theseus.
Development done. Its Meccano time
If we were going into a conflict, there are number of other already integrated weapons options. The F35B has the integration software as used by all other F35s. So we could “purchase” US cleared weapons if needed, such as the AARGM-ER, JASSM and JDAM. Which would give the aircraft a significant stand-off capability.
We have the most modern AMRAAM for the F-35s as well, so they’re equipped for A2A roles.
In an age where air-to-air combat is becoming BVR with missiles under the control of an in theatre airborne ASaC.
Hasnt happened yet. USN has just started to carry SM-6 on its planes.
Directed by an E-2D is not yet happening .
SM-6 is of course mid course guidance so needs extra hardware ( currently a sizable dish, SPG-62, on a Burke destroyer) X band to send the updates.
E-2D radar dish is UHF
No it’s not it. As well as the short medium range ASRAAM the U.K. F35’s have modern AMRAAM’s for medium/longer range air to air engagements.
What is NL doing with this article? From an outer point of view, it looks like a warning before departure of CSG 25.
Does the USN chain down their aircraft when they are moved in and out of the hangar?
Plus the car wash cleaning vibe looks very low energy.
Paint a few “Henrys” navy blue and get with the hip kids.
Yes they are secured to the deck when parked.
Unfortunately that was not the question.
Does the USN chain their aircraft to the lift when they are moving it between the flight deck and the hangar?
Sense suggests no but I’ll take any sensible answer with evidence.
Look at about 1:18 into this video, the jet is definitely chained to the elevator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0xtfDDKBYA
Got it — interesting video,
RN picture looked a bit stiff — maintaining / washing the aircraft on the lift !?!
Seemed a bit staged along with all the chains.
Must have been — we don’t use the hangar seemingly.
USN — Real work going on in the hangar not fitness classes.
Will we ever catch up?
You don’t even know what you are asking do you?
The elevator is part of the deck. Planes on the elevator are parked. And when they are parked they are secured.
So that was the answer…………
Elevators should not have stuff parked on them — defeats the basic purpose of transferring aircraft between the hangar and the flight deck.
OK so we have two — one for use / one for parking.
I can just about buy that given how few aircraft we have onboard.
PoW at 16 units — half chat / need only one elevator.
Half Nelson spec if you like.
However we should not be servicing planes on an elevator in the down position. That means that it is not part of the flight deck and we currently have a big gap in said flight deck.
Then we have the half and half angle — parked plane goes up and down continuously as we use the other half of the elevator to move stuff.
Big fail from the design point of view — three elevators better / bigger flight-deck better / bigger hull all round better.
Florence and Fred design fail — Transcontinental truck designed by the Fiesta engineering group.
Yes it works but it is an engineering curiosity not an engineering marvel.
Plus all that money spent on a hangar that we will not use.
MOD PR picture is wrong at every level — pun included.
Well you are not going to have things moving about on an elevator are you? You park it and secure it……………….
Active elevator — the one that does the heavy lifting.
Goes up and down between the flightdeck and the hangar.
That elevator?
But we are only using one of its spaces.
The other space on the active elevator is used for parking up.
So it gets a free ride up and down as we move stuff.
Questions everywhere about this use of resources.
Load on the elevator — parked unit up and down — and number of trips if it can only move one aircraft at a time.
Interesting stuff but not looking good.
Plus do squadrons only have two active flights at the moment?
They use the “Vehicle Ensured Location Combat Ready Optimum” system…. VELCRO.
Chaining regime — designed by the mechanically illiterate.
Are we just making it difficult for ourselves as a matter of course?
Wee Harry Ferguson would have done it in three.
MOD continues reputation of being “wasteful” when it ordered 2 Carriers of which Queen Elizabeth will be “mothballed” / spares to keep Prince of Wales in service.
We don’t have the capabilty to support both Carriers at same time at sea.
And where is this report of Qnlz being mothballed?
Also, we don’t deploy both carriers, we deploy 1, having 2 allows us to always have 1 available
Maybe his news source is the same as Trumps, the Kremlin!
We rarely deploy both at the same time.
It was never the intention.
That has happened . Both at sea at same time – different places
Back in Oct 2021 when QE was in pacific and POW was in UK waters
Politicians asked MOD to procure. Stop hating on MOD. They do what they are asked to do.
AEW — knickers getting twisted.
Strategic — satellite and land based airborne.
Tactical — helicopter based / UAV on a leash longer term.
Altitude — 1000 / 1500 metres as a starter for 10.
Balloon would be classier but harder to manage on deck.
Laser based energy transmission — too much like James Bond?
Even in these days of Dragonfire?
I agree that there should be a layered radar coverage. But we do need to keep things real. I would like to see the Leonardo Proteus equipped with a decent radar. This in my fantasy world would be used to provide a “local area” AEW. Whereby a ship operating on its own, such as a T23/T45 off the coast of Yemen or another hotspot. Has an over the ship’s horizon capability. Proteus based on the AW09 light helicopter, should be able to cruise at 5000ft, though the AW09 can apparently reach 20,000ft. At 5000ft, it will still give you a radar horizon of 100 miles. With an endurance of 5 to 6 hours, the ship may need at least two to provide a constant rotating coverage.
There has been rumours that Airlander may be trying to break into the military market. It would be an obvious choice for a maritime surveillance platform, but also provide some AEW. Its main drawbacks are its slow speed and limited ceiling approx. 20,000ft. Though it would be able to carry a significant long range radar.
A carrier based solution is I think the best, as you are not reliant on a friendly Nation allowing your land based AEW platform to operate from. Additionally satellite based radars still cannot provide the fidelity required for target identification or tracking. It will come at some point, but not for a while yet.
CSG operations — realistically where are they going to take place?
With that in mind would we not have access to land based AEW in just about every case plus with modern jet based re-fuelling the issue would be food supplies / fatigue rather than range limitations.
Might need more facilities in DG and StH plus Keeling Island and other exotic places but if we are going to go global we need to think global.
Satellite support — start out with a rough cut picture of stuff in the air and general heading to provide a level of early warning rather than the full detailed analysis that would come from elsewhere.
Cunning plan with a few gaps / missing pieces but after Crowsnest we need to think better / think bigger / think smarter.
Bitch fight between RN / ASW and RN / Flight Club is not a good look.
Plus I am not a great fan of the Merlin anyway,
This is interesting.
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Unmanned AEW&C Concept
The MQ-9B SkyGuardian/SeaGuardian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a potential candidate to conduct persistent wide-area surveillance/airborne early warning (AEW) from land and aircraft carriers, in the latter thanks to proof-of-concept demonstrations to be conducted starting from this autumn in the US. General Atomics has conducted concept development and engineering studies to see if the MQ-9B could conduct different demanding operations including AEW missions supported by a radar manufacturer. During the Combined Naval Event 2023 conference at Farnborough in the UK, General Atomics showed an MQ-9B-based AEW&C solution with IFF and BMC2 capabilities. This configuration of the MQ-9B platform was equipped with a dual-pod radar solution, with each underwing pod accommodating a radar antenna. The platform also featured a central conformal pod hosting the processing and cooling capabilities.
The GA-ASI MQ-9B UAV is a potential candidate to conduct persistent wide-area surveillance/AEW missions from land and aircraft carrier platforms.
Credit: GA-ASI
Obviously GA believe it’s doable.
Are they saying that there will be carrier trials of MQ9B STOL this autumn?
Maybe towards the end of the CSG?
Or will QE be making a visit to the US after her refit?
And it’s not just TR-3 and Block 4 that are going to cause further delays in the timeline.
” Lockheed Martin is evaluating options for a new F-35 cooling system, and the selection process could take up to two years.”
Pratt & Whitney, the engine manufacturer, aims for the ECU to be ready for initial service release in 2029, but the timeline for the upgrade and the full integration of the new engine into the F-35 fleet is still being developed.”
I think the most interesting paragraph in the link I have provided above is not only this, but when we can expect to receive the new engines
“Regardless of how a competition for the new cooling system proceeds, time is of the essence. A previous request for information from the JPO said the government expects a new cooling system solution should be ready to field in roughly the 2032 timeframe.”
One assumes that the aircraft will continue to operate with the present engines and they are fully replaceable units so why is this a big problem?
Because Nigel loves to crap all over the F-35. He fears it more than Putin.
Hello Ron 5, Do you remember me telling you when we first purchased our F-35-Bs (June 2018) that we would be lucky to see Meteor fitted before 2030? Rising costs and delays? eventually, you might just get the point!
Read the attached link above, it explains the problem clearly.
Also, P&W are still delivering engines late.
“The F-35 program has experienced significant delays, particularly with engine deliveries and the implementation of the Technology Refresh-3 (TR-3) upgrade.
While the program has reached full-scale production, Pratt & Whitney, the engine manufacturer, has consistently delivered engines late, often citing quality issues and manufacturing challenges.
These delays have impacted aircraft deliveries and readiness levels, with some F-35s being accepted into service before the TR-3 upgrade was fully implemented.”
So we will be able to use the present engines
Yes, the issue is thermal management going forward.
“ the issue is thermal management going forward”
Might I correct this?
the issue is *improved* thermal management going forward
FIFY
LOL, did you think it would remain the same or possibly get worse?
The aircraft uses the bypass air for environmental cooling, as in the aircraft’s avionics. With the TR3, the heat generated by the avionics has increased, but the bypass airflow had stayed the same. To increase the airflow the engine rpm has to be run faster, i.e. hotter. Which has a number of knock on effects. Such as increase the exhaust IR signature. A software upgrade to the engine’s DECU is supposed to solving some of this problem
Compounding the issue is the problem with the flaking blade surface coating and blade micro fractures in the turbine section, predominantly on the F135-600 engine used by the F35B. There have also been instances of the 1st stage fan growing and rubbing on the cowling. Which caused an F35A to catch fire, after a blade separated and went through the fuel tank.
The PW technology update has been advanced to fix a number of these issues with a new 1st stage fan, additional clearances with the cowling and a new coating for the turbine blades.. But this fix requires the engine to be completely stripped down and therefore increasing the time it is in the “shop”. But there’s a back log of engines waiting to be processed. Hence the delays.
Many thanks for your detailed reply regarding the current and ongoing issues with the engine. Fingers crossed the ECU will be a permanent fix and we can finally go ahead with Meteor at the very least.
“The UK’s original plan for the F-35 program involved procuring 138 aircraft, 90 for the Royal Air Force and 60 for the Royal Navy.
A permanent F-35 squadron was planned to be operational around 2018, with the potential to increase to two or three squadrons in the 2020s.
The UK also planned to equip its F-35Bs with the Meteor missile by the “middle of this decade,” although this has been pushed back.”
“The aircraft uses the bypass air for environmental cooling, as in the aircraft’s avionics”
Honewell, the contractor, describe it differently . Its an electrical system thats combined with the planes power generation run from APU
The thermal management is a big problem because Lockheed and their contractor Honeywell tried to be too clever and made the ‘system’ do more than just heat loads
So nay fix has to be power generation and heat loads solution and both way exceed the intial and reserve requirements
What detractors don’t seem to comprehend is that it is, at present, the most advanced fighter in the world And will get Better! Funny that technology doesn’t always go to plan. Even more surprising, software for complex projects isn’t like they do it in Hollywood! Makes you wonder.
What detractors do seem to comprehend however is, continuous delays in TR3, Blk 4, below average mission capable rates (F-35A:The F-35A’s mission-capable rate has been consistently below 50% for several years, with a recent rate of 51.5% in 2024), spiralling costs, delays in spares, and still no fixed timeline for Meteor.
Introduction date: F-35B: 31 July 2015 (USMC) F-35A: 2 August 2016 (USAF) F-35C: 28 February 2019 (USN)
Meteor was tested on F35 last year. The TR3 upgrade has happened (hardware) the software is being tested. So TR3/Block 4 are “in the air”. These are mission critical upgrades and will not be signed off until “ready”. However, in the meantime ask the Isreali’s about the utility of the F35!
Meteor — What level of testing?
Physical / Systems / Full integration from soup to nuts?
Block 4 software , ie not just the TR3 hardware, wont be flying till midyear- or later if the BK4 ‘release’ is delayed. Which is always the case.
BK4 is spiral development so the first releases will be baby steps, ie block 4A!
See below;
https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/f-35b-fighter-is-now-armed-with-no-escape-zone-meteor-missile/
When you say that Lt. Col. Carty is the first Royal Marine to ‘lead a fighter squadron in the UK’ are you being specific to RAF-badged squadrons?
Royal Marines have commanded Naval Air Squadrons in the past, for example 804 squadron operating Fulmar and Sea Hurricanes in 1942 was lead by Capt. Marsh, RM. 809 was lead for a time by Capt. Hay, flying Fulmars. Capt. Partridge of 800 NAS and Capt. Burch of 817 NAS led squadrons of Skua in early WWII, which may not count as fighters, though like the F-35 they were really multi-purpose aircraft and did score air-to-air kills, including the first British shoot-down of WWII.
Bit pedantic, but I’ve a distant relative who was a RM pilot, and always liked that aspect of integration and history.
RM pilots back in the day were exotic rarely sighted beasts. I am glad to hear there are some still roaming about……..
When the FAA was brought back into the RN it should have been tacked on to the RM.
I know they don’t have to be pilots but the COs of both RNASs are Bootnecks too.
The first UK CAG was a bootneck.
I think you need to reappraise your statement on using Proteus to fulfil a carrier based AEW requirement. The Proteus is based on the Leonardo (Kopter) AW09 helicopter, which is a 3t (with payload) class helicopter. Being unmanned it will be able to cruise near its maximum operating ceiling of 20,000ft, though that depends on the weight it is carrying. But what radar will it be able to operate? Due its small size it will likely have to be an X-band, similar to the current Searchwater 2000 used by Crowsnest. Though brought more up to date using an AESA array based radar.
Unless someone is willing to try and fit a folding L-band array under the fuselage, much like that used by the Russian/Chinese Ka-31 AEW. However, the single engine is unlikely powerful enough to generate the electrical requirements of a much larger radar and the motor needed to spin it. Additionally, the other issue such a small helicopter would have, is its endurance/range. It simply is not good enough for a carrier based AEW.
Even the MQ-9 STOL based UAS, would be a significant compromise. Even when fitted with a more modern AESA array, it will only be able to carry a X-band radar. Which is no better than what Searchwater can deliver. The real advantage, is that it is fixed wing and has an endurance over 8 hours, with the ability to cruise up to 40,000 in altitude.
However, the aircraft will be limited to operating an X-band radar due to the limited size of the airframe. Radars require the antenna array to match the wavelength and to have an large enough array area for adequate beamforming. Hence why radars such as the Erieye S-band (2 to 4GHz) are about 9m long. Without significantly boosting the amplification of the transmitter, its range will only be slightly better than the Searchwater, due to how X-band frequencies suffer significant atmospheric attenuation. Which is no longer adequate for carrier based AEW. With a range of around 200 miles, it leaves the aircraft very open to attack from very long range air to air missiles such as the Russian R37 and Chinese PL-17/21. Where a Su-35 can detect the emissions from the radar and launch the weapon, before the plane is detectable by the AEW X-band radar. Furthermore, the X-band radar is unlikely to detect the approaching missile until it is under 100miles.
For carrier AEW you simply need a better radar, that can detect threats over 300 miles away. Which gives you enough time to vector a CAP for intercepts. For that to happen you must use a lower frequency radar such as UHF, L or S band. However, as per the Erieye these radars are significantly bigger and require an aircraft suitably sized and with the electrical power required for the radar to operate at its maximum transmitter power.
There may be at least three platform options, that could be used. The first is a version of the V248-Valor. Though it would have to be modified with a pressurised cabin. So the crew can operate above 10,000ft without needing bottled air, unless it was operated remotely uncrewed. The aircraft is about long enough to mount an Erieye type S-band radar (possibly below the cabin). The twin engines will have enough power for the radar. The second option is the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray. Again it is just about long enough to fit an Erieye type radar, although you might be able to squeeze on a rotating dome as per the Hawkeye. The RR turbofan, should also be powerful enough to drive the radar. The third option is a bit left field, it would need modifying for maritime ops and operating from a carrier. This is the twin engined Eurodrone. It is slightly longer than the other two aircraft, so should also be able to carry an Erieye type radar.
However, all three options would offer significantly better detection ranges than Crowsnest or another aircraft using an X-band radar. Plus they will all have an endurance over 6 hours, with the Valor in an uncrewed version with additional internal ferry tanks, possibly around 8 hours. The MQ-25 and Eurodrone will have an endurances over 10 hours.
Just need a someone to make a decent decision!
Eurodrone?
It’s bold…
And it will need catobar, I guess.
Yes, its not small (or light). If the MoD’s RFI for the CATOBAR comes to fruition, problem solved. If the RN are seriously looking at the Stingray for its tanker requirement. They would also need CATOBAR to operate it from the carriers.
Perhaps RR should wheel out their old Mantis concept?
Was done about the same time as Taranis and has the same layout as Eurodrone.
Looking at the current delays in MQ9B I wonder if it might have been the better option, with more speed and greater payload. A STOL version would have been, to use a phrase from my own generation, absolutely peak.
Far out man.
Dammit, BAE
I’m surprised that despite having a higher max speed, greater MTOW and greater planned payload, Mantis was only demonstrated with 620hp (2×310) of turboprops, whereas MQ9B currently has a 900hp single turboprop.
Presumably BAE planned to upgrade later.
The solution is clearly the V-280 tilt-rotor
https://www.twz.com/air/navy-mh-60-seahawk-replacement-will-leverage-armys-future-vertical-lift-tiltrotor-plans
Years and years away
A worthwhile article on the MQ-25 Stingray can be found here. It will fly from a carrier in 2026 in a testing capacity. The MQ-25 can carry up to 15,000 pounds of fuel and has a range of 1,500 nautical miles.
Yeah and is made by Boeing, has been in development forever and costs $130m a pop! No chance.
I know, it was intended for DavyB as I thought he might be interested in reading it.
I believe DavyB has ruled out anything smaller than a business jet as having not enough power. Which leaves the V-280.
Not so much power, as length of the receiver antennae. That is a physical minimum length for efficiency.
10 metres I believe on the SAAB
For this you need high capacity cat and trap systems. They are a very very long way off for the QE class that’s if they ever happen.
I wondered what that thing on the back was in the picture, I thought a piece had come loose!!!
Cost twice as much as a fully equipped FA-18F
Let’s hope the price of fuel continues to drop!
Airborne tanker fuel is 10x the cost of on ground supply
The carriers should have been built around E2 not the fast pointy bomb truck. It was the lesson from Falklands War: no point having global reach but being locally blind.
Speak to SAAB to get an airborne version of Sea Giraffe and buy more Merlin. Job jobbed. Not ideal but there is no money and the carriers are just sitting ducks without something aloft.
A bit of fun to illustrate the problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qwbwjmHXHE&ab_channel=GrimReapers
The French with their one hull are still better than off than we are. Nuclear powered so less pressure on our limited number of tankers. A jet with something called weapons aka the reason why we send the thing to sea. And they have E2 not only to see incoming threats but to also orchestrate offence.
It is nice to see optimism. But some of you are just deluded. Our carriers are toothless and blind and just burning bunkers for show.
Saab 340 AEWCS and the MV 22 Osprey
could this be a solution to the problem?
I said something similar a while back my comment went into moderation.
My problem with Osprey is not the platform per se if it works. But it doesn’t work. It is to problematic. It’s software stack is in crisis. Mechanically they are proving to be questionable.
I think it would be more appropriate to stay with Merlin.
I was thinking tilt-rotor as well. If not Osprey then maybe V-280 Valor or AW609. Adopting tilt-rotor might also help address in-flight refueling (though different airframe than AEW). AW609 has same/better range & higher service ceiling than Merlin, but don’t know if it’s payload is enough. V-280’s service ceiling seems a bit low, but that is for helicopter mode; couldn’t find ceiling in airplane mode. They would both need to be fitted with folding wings.
There are also some tilt-rotor drones that look interesting: PteroDynamics and Bell V-247 Vigilant.
As a development project you would need to spend a lot of money. I suspect the government won’t be happy doing even development with overseas companies.
Very good point, but replacement for Crows Nest is going to involve development money in any event. I can certainly see, in these days, why UK wouldn’t want to spend money collaborating with the US, but what about with Leonardo? I’m really surprised there hasn’t been more talk about tilt-rotor, whether with manned or unmanned.
Although the V-247 was a proposal there is no evidence that this is being taken forward. However, the V-280 will be the replacement for 1,000s of US army rotorcraft and Navy/Marines will follow. The UK have “observer” status. So this is a done deal for the US due to be operational by 2029/30.
I presume the V-280 is approx. the same size as a business jet and I believe the production models will have the same RR engines as the MV-22 Osprey, so power shouldn’t be a problem.
Except we’d be footing the bill for trying to get a radar on it
Perhaps not in isolation. There are quite a few Navies that operate small carriers along with the F35B. What they don’t have is a decent AEW platform. This was a major conclusion when the USN/USMC used their LHDs as Lightning carriers. When doing the exercises in the South China Seas and around the Philippines. They had to rely on USAF E3 Sentries. Which due to the weather around the Philippenes were either late on station or simply couldn’t make it. Therefore the USN’s conclusion was, yes the Lightning carrier worked in principle, but it needed organic AEW.
If the USN/USMC along with other Nations see that there is a need, perhaps a joint effort could be made to convert the Valor into a AEW platform?
Seeing as we want it within 5 years it will probably be the proteus Helo or MQ9
This has already been trailed on an RN carrier
https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2023/09/uas-lands-on-royal-navy-carrier-at-sea/
Def not. Pretty basic aircraft which probably entirely lacks enough power
Arent all drones ‘basic’.
Power is related to the mission and payload. 100kg or 1000km pretty good. Im sure the designers understand power and lift better than you do.
Its meant to fly slow , just like a helicopter, but more range !
So the facts dont agree with your dubious claims
Where did the Lightning carrier exercises ‘conclusions’ say they needed E-3 sentries – which fast going out of service.
USMC understand they arent a replacement for CV’s buts its baffling you claim the AEW was a major issue
The F35 has considerable AEW from its passive sensors as they are doing CAP at distance in any case.
F35 has less loiter time and less radar coverage than a dedicated AEW
Still need a CAP. even if you have an E-2
RN isnt getting a dedicated perfect answer to every need. Its better to carry more F35 than use the space for aewunobtanium
F35B is a good passive AEW and active when needed and can send the data back to the carrier .
The results were published by the USN following the Lightning Carrier exercises, there were a number of conclusions. The first was that the America class LHDs are not as survivable as the larger Nimitz or Ford carriers, if hit by bombs or missiles, as the hangar deck and vehicle decks, do not have sufficient fire curtains or suppression to prevent the spread of fire. The second was that the ship’s magazine depth was too small. A carrier with more than 18 aircraft would quickly deplete the magazine within a week, if the ship was engaged in continuous operations. The third was when engaged against the RAAF as a red threat. The USAF E3 Sentrys’ could not provide adequate 24/7 AEW coverage, due to their location in the Philippines.
Totally agree that the F35 has a very good ESM capability. However, how many CAP aircraft will be on patrol, two, four or more? Additionally how long will the CAP be on station and in need of being rotated. Having a dedicated AEW platform will allow it to stay on station much longer than the F35.
Evidence please. I checked back and nothing/nada/zilch said that at all.
Its never expected to be a CV replacement . full stop.
Wheres the evidence for the E-3 sentries or even E-2. ?
CAP are always required in combat situations. One F-35 plane does both
Even in Falkland’s when RN was ‘beyond stretched’ they flew CAP with Sea Harriers. Doesnt make sense to have slow AEW 100 miles away without CAP in support somewhere in a few minutes flying time.
Carrier AEW seems to make some lose their minds completely.
The V-280 Valor should have either a similar or better ceiling than the V22 Osprey which is publicized as 25,000ft. This is based on two facts. The wing of the Valor is correctly proportioned to the aircraft’s max all up weight, whereas the Osprey’s is shorter than it should be, due to the design requirements of being able to taxi past the island on the Wasp class LHDs. Which also goes for the Osprey’s prop-rotors. They are are also shorter than they should be. Which is why the Osprey has a poor disc loading and a high downwash. As the prop-rotors have to spin faster to generate the required thrust. Therefore the wing of the Valor will provide more lift at a higher ceiling. Secondly the production version of the V-280 will have derivatives of RR T406 turboshafts as used by the Osprey, rather than the GE T64s. These should provide at least an additional 2000shp over the prototypes engines. Which along with the correctly sized prop-rotors will enable it to operate at a higher altitude compared to the the T64s. At a minimum the Valor should be capable of reaching the same altitude as the Osprey, though it will likely exceed it by quite a bit.
Bell have shown a 1:1 scale model of a marinized Valor to the USMC. It included the Osprey like folding wing and prop-rotors. But also had the V-tail inverted to give it more hangar head clearance. Bell are advertising this version as a possible replacement for the USMC’s Hueys and MH-60s in general. As this aircraft would meetthe USMCs need for extended range and speed as per the US Army’s requirement.
The other decision to make is whether to keep the aircraft crewed or not. Bell and the US Army are looking at an uncrewed option. This is important if the aircraft is going to be used for AEW, as it is currently not pressurized. Therefore the crew would have to be on a force fed oxygen system if they want operate at 20,000ft or higher. A remotely operated Valor, would not need pressurizing. Which would be a very costly airframe modification.
The Valor would in most respects be a better option than the AW609, as the Valor is a newer second generation tilt-rotor. However, the AW609 is pressurized, which means it could be a crewed AEW platform if required. The main downside, is that there will likely be well over 1000 Valors produced to replace the Black Hawk for the US Army alone, not to mention exports etc. Which means it has a significantly better economy of scale over the AW609 and therefore have lower purchase and operating costs.
Thanks, DaveyB! Great info!!
Agree with your sensible comments. However, Bell are teaming with Leonardo on the European Medium Helicopter project. Presumably they will offer a Tilt-rotor, as it offers twice the speed and range of a fixed rotor alternative. It would therefore be logical to offer a combination, possibly pressurised 2nd generation. If so it would be a no brainer for Leonardo and the other options couldn’t come close in capability. I believe you underestimate the market for medium tilt-rotors, which is probably between 2k – 4K units.
V-280 wont have much more capability than Merlin Crowsnest.
Its only a 1/3 of the max weight of an Osprey
For a carrier the Osprey does a rolling takeoff, so I dont agree over your disk loading effect and wing length .
The F35 does fine with its little penguin wings ( extended for the C version)
Interesting to read this article and take into context recent missives on the US Navy (Congressional Reporting Service) and French 360Opex blog. The FOC of the F-35 is terrible, apart from everyone else! Nobody else including the Ford class, at the latest estimate of $14bn a pop! Has got this far (not even the Chinese!).
As for Crowsnest, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but there were limited options at the time. As for the future, there is no doubt that it will be drone based and featuring ML/AI. As for future rotorcraft, see the attached the latest missive from the USN/USMC, the chances of a traditional helicopter win are close to zero.
No way are the USN/USMC going all in remotely piloted. All thats required for ‘remote’ is a cargo hauler at the 1000kg level for back and forth missions
I see the AI hype bubble hasnt subsided yet for some.
Im pretty sure Britain has 41 + jets by early 2023 The 35 number is out of date
I think the issue might be about where they are located.
Numbers paid for vs numbers in the UK with the difference parked on a LM runway.
An obvious point is that any AEW solution is going to be ridiculously expensive to operate if it uses a unique platform for a dozen aircraft with all the logistics, training etc involved. Either the platform is going to have to be used by the UK forces for other purposes, it will have to be part of some sort of international shared maintenance deal or it will need to be in common use with UK civilian operators. Ospreys and Valors can’t be the solution as they are just too expensive to run for us, Helicopters don’t have the altitude, Balloons are too vulnerable. I think you’re going to need the larger radars and that means a larger aircraft which probably puts the platform at a size where it’s feasible to spread costs by using it for refuelling, EW, troop transport etc. I don’t see the right platform available right now but Hercules did land on a US carrier in the past and technology has moved on quite a bit since then – maybe Erieye on a medium STOBAR aircraft is the way to go?
Very true that any AEW solution using a unique platform is going to be ridiculously expensive. Also true that helicopters and balloons are not the way to go. Erieye would be great, but I’m skeptical about it on a QE STOBAR without it also being ridiculously expensive to acquire and fit catapult and/or arrestor gear. I’m leaning to a derivate of the AW609 with a derivate of Erieye. Yes, I understand that has a fantasy fleet vibe!
Arrestor gear isn’t that expensive – it’s the catapault that’s the problem. If you place it at the bow, you limit wingspan and only having 1 means that you limit launch capacity and are at risk of losing capability if it becomes unserviceable. I think STOBAR needs a serious look.
Catapults are not expensive.
Gold plated MOD spec catapults are expensive and probably not very good.
Controlled gas generation event catapults might be a way forward — new age steam if you like.
Fat Bloke on Tour
You really do like your excessively complex and expensive soluations, don’t you!
Both catapults and gas generation are both far too complex!
——————————————–
Heres how to do launch fom a short carrier ….properly
Bungee Jumping Records and Feats – Bungee Blog
It needs nothing more complex than a big hook fitted to the top of the QE ski-jump – then pull back the 250m long elastic bungee = and let the plane go
Peter(Irate Taxpayer)
PS it is a great shame that the founder of the Dangerous Sports Club died a couple of years ago (from natural causes).
I guess that means MOD will have to pay a BAE test pilot the full going rate!.
The RAF currently has no AEW capability and will on current plans have only have a fleet size of 3 aircraft. It would make sense to supplement that with an unmanned platform which could also be operated by the Navy. That way we could scale up the number of required platforms, reduce unit cost and also plug a gaping capability gap in UK air defence.
Navy should forget inadequate rotary solutions and plan instead for some of the heavier UAVs. Find a suitable platform and then use the requirements of supporting that platform as a deliverable for Project Ark Royal so that suitable CATs and Traps can be fitted to support it.
Ark Royal is never going to happen, certainly not within the next 5 years
I’m struggling to understand why the Royal Navy is always struggling to provision airborne early warning for its carriers. Our experience in The Falklands instructs us that it is a need to have not a nice to have. If it’s just a funding issue then just prioritise it. Wasting time looking for reasons not to do something is always more expensive than just solving a problem properly and then moving onto the next problem.
Crowsnest takes up precious airframes we can’t spare and the radar is not very good
We made a decision ten years ago to go with a substandard interim solution, and I believe that was on cost grounds. Proper AEW is expensive and no, MOD aren’t willing to prioritise it. So let’s say they decided it would take £5bn and fifteen years to get it right. What would you “just” deprioritise, aka cancel, to pay for it?
May I take a long range guess here?
The lesson of ‘82 was that a quick solution could be lashed up double quick time with ingenuity and a lot of gaffer tape.
Fast forward to the Sea King OSD – which most people thought would be extended – including Prince William who went to see Cameron on this.
This then left a problem of how to resolve, what on the surface, appeared to be the same problem.
Now with the added complexity of a digital cab and Haddon Cave.
So the problem could not be improvised around in the same manner as there was a software interface to the avionics to consider as well as well as the regulatory hurdles of manned military flight.
Falklands solution — top quality bodge engineering.
Surely a trip to Dodgy Dave’s World of Helicopters was in order.
Anybody out there with low hours Sea Kings looking to trade up.
That would have generated some donor airframes to be re-purposed.
You know some level of remanufacture — Yeovil is into this kind of stuff.
Kicking the can down the road — probably.
But surely it would provide better use of resources than Crowsnest.
A Franken-solution of the worst kind — low quality brought on by stupid game playing from an obtuse MOD / service box tickers / empire builders. No sure where and what the fault lines are in this endeavour but there are those in the MOD who want to publicise this shambles in all its gory detail.
Work it through to the end no matter the damage to the RN / MOD / UK MIC.
The current publicity around the 2029 service retiral date is just someone wanting to rub someone else’s nose it it.
RN vs helicopters — hobby horse central by current events.
Supportive Bloke
A factual correction on your timeline…..
Helicoptor bourne AEW had been proposed by Westlands as far back as the late 1960s’
However their proposal was then completely ignored by the RN for well over decade =
…..until just after a few ships had been sunk (i.e. becuase of the lack of it….)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/04/royal-navy-seeks-new-airborne-early-warning-capability-for-its-carrier-strike-groups/
note the date
Indeed they had.
But I do t think much had actually been done other than figure out how the ‘bag’ would work and the sort of radar that the Sea King could carry and power.
It’s perplexing to me that they wont just buy more Merlins. They suffer availability issues as it is… Imagine how hard it will be keeping those older airframes in the air in the late 2030s
I still don’t see a better ASW platform than Merlin – absolutely we should buy more. This could have been tied into the Puma replacement too.
We need more Merlins– floating Merlins in fact.
Lot cheaper / more resilient / more capable.
Use them as force multipliers.
Stick with a crew — fully autonomous is beyond us now and we need speed into service not mid century timelines.
Merlin is too big for the NMH requirement
Requirements can be changed, especially to save costs – the RAF seems happy to be almost exclusive on noisy, slow enormous Chinooks – Merlins a lot better than that!
Ain’t gonna change, there’s a desire to keep Yeovil open and not a lot of money, more likely a niche underequipped design than Merlin
So we have 35 F35’s at present and will conclude (all being well) delivery of the first batch by years end. That means we will get 13 this year, that must be the most we have had delivered in the space of a year right?
Australia already has 72 F35A’s.
B’s are little more complicated.
But it makes me wonder why we are waiting for airframes. You can bet Oz hasn’t paid for all those A’s fully yet. Isn’t the UK the only Teir 1 Partner?
Selling Aus to China by the ton means that they have the cash to buy lots of expensive aircraft.
Plus they don’t tie themselves in knots with box ticking / service in-fighting / safety case make work schemes.
Its 41 F-35 delivered for UK at this time
NAO ‘The MoD currently expects to receive 48 aircraft by the end of 2025″
For this year its roughly 1 every 2 months
Delivered — Yes.
Paid for — definitely.
Based — that is the big question.
I’m sure some will be parked up somewhere on a LM back lot.
35 / 34 available — delivered as earlier spec.
13 to be delivered as Upgrade / Tranche 3?
Avionics cooling angle — US does Bowman vibe to me.
The heat generation increase must be open to question.
All this extra high energy computing — seems to be a half cooked solution.
Doesnt work that way. The held back TR3 have been coming to customers
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/uk-to-take-first-tr-3-standard-f-35-as-lockheed-targets-full-138-unit-commitment/160501.article
35 was last octobers number
we are 6-8 more delivered- not ‘accepted’- since then
Presumably some were held up from last year when the US put a moratorium on new deliveries until LM fixed TR3 issues.
Perhaps the main argument for a rotary solution is that it might be able to fly in worse weather than fixed wing.
Would a large, relatively flimsy winged UAV fly in windier weather?
During the Falklands conflict there were periods where even a USN carrier could not have flown fixed wing aircraft.
Can anybody corroborate this please?
Dave Wolfy
I am with you on this one…..and indeed I have argued exactly the same point (more Merlins) here on NL before now….
Unfortunately far to many people look at the USN Hawkeye through their rose-tinted envy-googles – and start thinking “it is in USN service = so it must be pefect“
………….when in fact it is nothing of the sort…..
……then others assume that unpiloted must be better than piloted……
…..then gop on to assume that military R&D can be cheap and quick….
…….then, with anything to do with whirrybirds- used by all three srvices – we also have the long running issue (as corrctly highlighted by others here, directly above) that all three of the UK armed services repeatedly squabble amougst themselves
…… and therefore all must herefore all have their own guuci kit -when in fact effective UK AEW is needed by all three services
SQUABBLING | English meaning – Cambridge Dictionary
‘It’s a knight in British army issue shining armour’ – Knight in string vest and underpants – CartoonStock
———————————-
For very distant RN AEW – why not just use one F35 fighter, hundreds of miles out fom the carrier, to scan the sector with its LO radar ? Achieves a very early shootdown long before the raider gets anywhere close.
For long range and high allitude detection – just use shipborne radars (either the T45 or even the QE’s own radar)(note1)
For AEW at closer ranges – especially to detect the very low allitude threats – a Merlin over the top of the carrier group provides the third inner-most defensive layer
—————-
Therefore the UK ordering more all-new Merlin airframes – for ASW, AEW and Commando – would be a very goood idea. Ideally with the modern engines
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. However my own preference in wartime would be for the RN carrier itself to go dark on all its own ENCOM. It is now far far too easy to pin-point a ship by very basic radio-direction finding……
The sad truth is that even with the F35’s APG-81 and soon to be upgraded to the APG-85 radar, it does not have the sufficient detection range needed for an AEW type requirement. The radar is an X-band (8 to 12 GHz) radar, though it can most likely operate in some parts of lower C-band (4 to 8 GHz) and the higher Ku-band (12-18Ghz). However as the transmitted frequency it is more and more affected by atmospheric attenuation, where the air acts like a giant resistor. Meaning that on the same amount of transmitter power, as the frequency goes up, the effective detection range comes down. This can be compensated by transmitting at higher power levels, but it also means you need a very effected thermal management system for items such as power amps.
For radars such as this, the expected detection range is around 200 miles, but again that is dependent on the type of target being detected. Something like an air to air missile, is very unlikely to be detected at the radar’s max effective detection range, whereas a commercial airliner is.
The type of radar needed for a decent carrier based AEW, should operate either in the UHF, L or S radar bands. As they maximize the detection range for least amount of transmitter power. Though the caveat here is that as the frequency decreases, that resolution of the target also decreases, along with an increase in detected clutter. Meaning you have to use significantly more signal processing to get better target fidelity.
As Saab’s Globaleye demonstrates, this aircraft uses a combination of the latest Erieye-ER operating in the S-band (2 to4 Ghz) and the Seaspray 7500E (AESA) operating in the X-band (8 to 12Ghz). This version of Erieye has a published detection range of over 350 nautical miles (650km), which is is used for long range volume searching. Whilst the Seaspray, being mounted underneath the aircraft’s fuselage, gives very good horizon scanning and look-down capabilities, due to its much higher resolution.
By using a combination of radars gives a much better situational awareness. Plus allows threats to be detected at a significant stand-off range. Which is crucial for preserving your AEW platforms when faced with the likes of R37 and PL17 very long range air to air missile threats. That have been specifically designed to target AEW platforms.
DaveyB
As always…………your very detailed remarks are a very useful set of comments about the effectiveness, or otherwise, of many different types of AEW radars.
———————
However, being unable to change the laws of physics, it now has to be pointed out to many others posting here (esp FBOT) that any naval aviation radar system being used for AEW will always suffer from the one very big, and very inherent, design compromise….
That fundamental limitation is thus always going to mean that any naval AEW system is “somewhat compromised”
(Note. this was once called “gravitational effects” by its original inventor Sir Issac)
—-
However, as I am sure that Davey B personally fully appreciates, the trick is to try to design, build and operate such a naval AEW platform so that one get the best all around compromise:
The fact that naval AEW is not – and indeed it cannot ever be – 100% foolproof is precisely why fitting many other types of inner layer defensive measures to all other naval ships then come into very sharp focus (note 1)
(i.e. long range fighters; shipborne radars; missiles, guns; loud warning pipes; teaching “duck-and-cover” (note 2); anti-flash clothing; damage control and survivability standards, leak path analyisis etc etc)
————-
That key comment about the importance of stand-off ranges will probably become even more true over the next few years if (or, far more likley, “when”) our mostly likely enemies – especially the Chinese – soon develop their own very effective aviation stealth technology (for both their planes and missiles)
———————–
I will add that I am totally baffled as to why the RAF very latest big drones – nowdays being flown by the crabbs elite WRCMPC unit (Waddington Radio Control Model Plane Club) – cannot have a big underslung AEW pod fitted.
———————-
I would add that one big advantage of rotary-wing AEW (i.e. over fixed wing AEW) is that a whirrybird can be launched and operated from any type of naval ship which is (very-simply) fitted with a suitably sized helipad.
Therefore, with a rotary wing Biggles piloted AEW = the availability of a naval AEW asset is not just totally reliant upon the RN having a flat-topped carrier available to use in the operational theatre. AEW becomes far more flexible…..
That is precisely why I have previously proposed here on NL:
——————————-
So, despite all the comments being made above, I am seeing nothing here that says that the problem of naval AEW, – the very same one that was first identified by Sir Issac long before the invention of radar itself – is going to be completely solved “anytime soon”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
Like DaveyB, I am personally a great fan of SAAB’s kit. Their Globaleye is yet another good example of well-thought throught – and also well built – piece of kit
………one that is affordable and it also works where and when it is supposed to…..
…..unlike the very latest C4ISR software on our 40 year old Crowsnest concept..
Note 1
Note 2
The Duck and Cover Technique is taught in most US schools, however it is still not part of the national education syllabus used here in the UK.
Note 3
That comment about the T45 is being made here…….obviously assuming that the T45 is out sailing on the high seas – so it is not in a Pompey dockyard having yet another set of its AAA batteries replaced
Suggestion from a friend…..
Too expensive and not reliable enough.
Random Commentaor
When I posted this one on NL a few year ago = Sean got very annoyed with me!
So, quite deliberately, I am going to post it again now….
———————
If one wants a well-proven, and also a UK sovereign, fixed-wing solution to RN AEW
Look no further….
.
AEW Defender
This STOL “blast from the past” is quite capable of taking off and landing on he deck of either QE carrier = without needing any catapults or arrestor wires
Howwever the RN might want to fit a more modern radar!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Ohh, you are awful… but seriously you are looking in right direction…’son of Defender’
This is HCMC made by WAS which has had RN carrier trials
https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2023/09/07/britain-tests-transport-drones-ability-to-land-take-off-from-ship/
Interesting article here regarding Project Ark Royal, we should know more after the Integrated Review.
“We are looking to move from STOVL to STOL [short takeoff and landing], then to STOBAR [short takeoff but arrested recovery] and then to CATOBAR [catapult assisted takeoff but arrested recovery]. We are looking at a demonstrable progression that spreads out the financial cost and incrementally improves capability.”
I wonder if the nose could carry an F35 radar with enough endurance?
Or even Typhoon’s new set?
Naval AEW — does one size fit all?
Would a layered approach be more achievable / more useful?
Naval AEW — do the radars exist?
Are they expensive — to buy / operate / personnel?
Is the platform the difficult bit — the contraption / vector to get it off the ground?
UAV on a leash — puts the horizon out to 70 / 80 / 90 miles.
Not the gold standard but offers something.
UAV off the leash — would that get us out to 120 / 130 miles?
USN “Hawkeye” — does that take you out to 170 / 180 miles?
So where were we with SK / 1982 bodge?
Where will we be with “Crowsnest”?
Will Crowsnest provide 24×7 coverage?
And how much strain will that put on the Merlin fleet regarding life hours?
Starting to see the RN stresses and strains with the whole project.
RN / ASW branch up against RN / Flight Club branch.
Remembering that a house divided will always fall.
RAF shouting fight / fight / fight so they can get their hands on all the F35s.
Or at least get the second batch as F35A’s.
The definitive piece on Naval AEW is under an article on UKDJ, a comment by DaveyB:
Competition to enhance Royal Navy early warning capabilitiesFrom May 2021. Goes through the different options (but ignores STOL) with frankly excessive detail.
Unfortunately many contributors on here either can’t read or have goldfish memories.
All this has been patiently explained so many times.
Nothing has really changed but we get barrage balloons lofting radars, power cables being lifted by platforms.
At least the power needed for functional AEW has sunk in.
Really what is needed is a narrow wingspan drone – speed is utterly unimportant just endurance, weight capacity and power.
Trouble with all helicopter based solutions is that air thins and even in UAV format [so no need for crew or pressurised] the rotors fight harder to lift and fuel efficiency decreases. So loitering time won’t be amazing and time to and off station is a factor.
Without catobar, the QEC aircraft carriers seem like a heavy weight boxer with a middle weight punch. Adding them under Project Ark Royal should be a priority as this would allow a proper AWACs solution, aerial refuelling drones and interoperability with allies, not just using the F35B but also potentially French and US Navy aircraft. This would put the carriers in a unique position.
Here’s a thought (experiment), rather mothballing one of the carriers, which now seems inevitable, why not swap one for an Izumo-class destroyer (a middle weight boxer, with a middle weight punch) – the redundancy offered by two carriers is worth keeping, but something smaller, HMS Ocean plus sized, would seem more manageable both cost and personnel wise.
Project Ark Royal — surely not.
Is Cameron back in the game?
Total waste of time and effort — it was the last time.
What has changed — has the budget gone up?
Why don’t we just buy a couple of big box containerships and get jiggy with the angle iron.
Start off with a second hand unit and then work your way up.
Services to support 30 aircraft — what volume would be involved?
Plenty of space in a 14K TEU box ship — 500K cubic metres or thereabouts.
That would be 200K m3 below the main deck and 300K m3 above for the hangar and the crew spaces.
So much we will not need it all — plenty of space for blast boxes to add in some resilience.
1200′ x 200′ flight deck should allow space for everybody.
Plenty space for traps.
Plenty space for cats.
Low profile design vibe to get it under the Forth Rail Bridge.
Because an aircraft carrier and a container ship aren’t the same hydrodnamically. Different hull forms for different purposes.
Different purposes …
Lets start with the basics as in floating — all good.
Hull forms / Aircraft carrier history — Heinz involved as in 57 different styles.
Stability — Big box ship wins all ends up.
Manoeuvrability — PoW looks a bit heavy / portly but probably has the edge.
Real estate — Big Box ship wins.
Value — Not a contest.
Hull form / hydrodynamics — Big Box Ship has 30 years of multiple entities improving steadily where every tonne of fuel counts.
PoW — 50’s / 60’s design vibe rehashed for the 2010’s.
Hull form looks heavier plus the speed has been reduced.
Weak design history with a hobby horse vibe.
Length constraints hurt the overall design.
Overall — I think big box ships are the more complete / mature design family and are some way ahead of Florence and Fred.
Where do you come up with this stuff . Its too silly for words
Try looking at Navy Lookouts older posts and extensive background on the size and hull etc.
https://www.navylookout.com/development-of-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-a-design-history/
And to refute your uninformed hull form/hydrodynamics and ’50s/60s’ claims
‘In 2005 BMT announced it has tested 4 different CVF hull form models and assessed them for propulsion efficiency, manoeuvrability, seakeeping and noise signatures. It also investigated skeg length, rudder size, transom stern flaps and bulbous bow designs.”
Its all done from scratch now as the software can generate more detailed results and make them ‘accessible’ for naval architects
You have one design team — point in time exercise — come up with 4 alternatives. That is the design history of this vessel class.
From memory other groups had a go but this is the one chosen.
All based on hypotheticals rather than real world experience.
4 alternatives based on what — vapourware / brainware.
Consequently interesting but nowhere near complete.
Compare and contrast with big box boat history.
30 plus years of real world design / build / use experience.
Liner spec boats / slow steaming / split superstructure.
The designers have been challenged in all these areas.
Therefore a much more complete and sophisticated design history.
In this context the QE Class is Masters project level of analysis.
Probably a bit harsh but lacking real world engagement.
Rudder sizing is not rocket science or even airbag science.
50’s/60’s vibe — funny how two different designs 50 years apart dealing with completely different air groups both come in at 930 feet long in round numbers.
Homeport Pompey take a bow — your stamp is on both of them.
Navigation restrictions in the harbour would appear to be involved.
Milford Haven / Invergordon / that bay in Cornwall — come on down.
So the design rules of 1960 became the design rules of 2010.
Only difference is the lack of speed in the later example.
QE is underpowered compared to historical precedents.
Big Box Boats probably have similar issues to be fair.
Although twin skeg could go up to 120MW if required.
But they would be cheap and we would have 4 rather than 1 + 1.
Probably overkill but it shows the savings we could have made.
Hull length is based on port facilities old chap.
Dry docks are another consideration for width and sill depth.
Large carriers are always going to look alike from the outside- to the untrained eye. Same goes for large liners etc.
‘Underpowered’ is nonsense, they set a design max speed and achieve it within the hull lengths that will fit in RN facilities
We have been here before and it wasn’t pretty.
Narrow beam in RN battleships pre Jutland was an issue.
Hobbling your biggest assets because of some civil engineering issue.
Not good.
Were we going to build the 1960’s carriers in Rosyth — I think not.
Speed — they are getting slower.
Ark Royal / Eagle were nothing special.
But they were much faster than Florence and Fred.
Port facilities — I think it is manoeuvring limitations in Portsmouth harbour that is the issue not the length of quayside available to tie them up.
They are the largest carriers ( warships even) ever built for the RN. Theres never been a -sensible- suggestion they be even bigger . So your claims fall flat
Why keep repeating this Soviet propaganda nonsense about mothballing a QE when the chances of the U.K. mothballing one of the carriers is less than the chances of building a third! And by the way, if there is any further tendency to repeat Putin Propaganda, the defence budget is actually rising.
As for this Cats & Traps nonsense. As I have said before, we dodged a bullet! Read the Congressional reports, it’s still not working on the Ford, yesterday’s technology. The future is not Cats & Traps (for over a $billion).
We have two carriers in operation at the moment. But at some point in the future one, probably QE, will have to go into deep refit.
Deep refit — like why?
What has worn out sitting alongside in Portsmouth?
Deep refit — are we talking 5 years before it re-enters service?
Same again for the PoW?
We need to get cracking with our box boat experiment.
No one is interested in your box boat idea
Good — less competition to drive up second hand prices.
Because ships are complicated machines, there are updates, there are deletions, and interiors tire. That is why ships are bought on 3 for 1 basis. Perhaps if you had visited ships at the start of their commissions and at their end you would know why.
And your point is………
Izumo is a bad Stvol carrier because it was not built for it. And why would we swap a perfectly good carrier out for one were not familiar with.
And no we’re not getting catapaults, will cost Billions let alone the Billions for say 3 Hawkeyes
Izumo and Kaga ,as a design, is no different to the USMC LHD flat tops. The additional features for the very capable F-35B STOVL are being added now, including heat resistant deck coating and changing deck at bow to a squared shape
Even the USMC ships actually have Stovl aircraft in mind. Izumo class is not ideally setup to operate f35 either in lift setup or hangar space.
I expect the conversion of the two ships to be a first step, to regain the knowledge of carrier ops. Which means that Japan will likely look at dedicated carrier design in the future. The question is will they stay with the STOVL design or go with the CATOBAR? If China are ramping up production of their CATOBAR carriers with the Type 004 allegedly now in production. How will this sit with Japan?
That largely depends on how F35B pans out and the kegs of Tempest.
If Tempest lives up to billing and has long legs then F35B will be fine for Japan.
Whilst they do t have nuclear they still need to focus resources and starting to built big catapult carriers would be a distraction.
Just as in the UK we have the current JSF B/C manoeuvring going on.
RAF clearly want F35 but not the BRAVO variant. Hence the nonsense of buying the CHARLIE variant which would mean UK and USN were the only customers. The reason permeating through is that CHARLIE has AAR comparability which ALPHA does not.
Also means that until Project Ark Royal is real F35C pilots won’t get wet feet.
BRAVO makes more sense for UK as IT / JPN operate it and UK makes a lot of the critical bits. We are already aerospace aligned with Tempest.
RN are happy with BRAVO but they need a more can-do approach and part inventory to match.
Where is that claim sourced ?
.webp
That on the face of it is saying Japanese navy doesn’t know how design their ships ?
I believe they can and will and will do what it takes _ see image
look at the size of the side lift !
I never said it was a bad Helo carrier. But the fact they had to rebuild the entire front is clear that it was not optimised for F35 operations
Angle iron engineering — superb.
I wonder what the budget was?
Ever so slightly off topic, but could we use this onboard the UKs surface fleet for protection going forward?
17.04.2025
British soldiers have successfully tracked, targeted and defeated swarms of drones in the latest trial of a new directed energy weapon developed in the UK.
Somewhere close to Gatwick Airport?
“COMPUTER SAYS NO”
All
Despite there now being over 200 posts written on this topic, nobody here on NL appears to be picking up the one really critical issue, the common theme throughout…:
i.e. the root causes of this F35 strike fighter and Crowsnest AEW omnishambles
..i.e. very expensive defence programmmes that require even more complex computer software
So, even as we speak.
..
————————————
Meanwhile, even as we speak, the software experts at Google are trying to covert the hatchback version of their well-triled prototype driverless car into a self-loading bin lorry
What’s Next? A Driverless Car from Google – Evans on Marketing
(and the more asture of you will realise this website link dates back to 2012!)
that is, quite obviously, assuming the orginal google software can be rewritten – to prevent their new automate bin lorries from running over and squashing the increasingly large rodents now walking the streets of Birmingham….
……which, if thtat conundrum is not solved “quite soon” would thus require the development of a second type of driverless vehcile
i.e. a driverless vehicle to remove the very-bloody rodent roadkill from the streets
———————
Thus current UK defence procurement policy appears to be
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
As french guy, I can’t judge UK Defence procurement policy.
But Ukraine campaign and its drone’s war (air, sea, land) is clearly a game changer.
Magic mushrooms treating you well! To paraphrase the kids, software is the future, deal with it!
OkamsRazor
This is not one for the kids…….
Software coding has always been the most important aspect of any major new defence programme – especially any one of the very big and very complex aviation programmes – for at least the past 25 years.
Therefore it is quite incredible that these sorts of huge software balls-ups (i.e. F35 and Crowsnest) keep occuring – and reoccuring:
These are programmes that are now many years later and billions of pounds overbudget
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS It is not me on the magic mushrooms! It is those living in the MOD ivory towers = whom still seem to think that throwing ever more money at software coders will solve all of their worldly problems….
I think the boys in the Swordfish have found themsevles less lucky than the F35 pilots (although Swordfish were natively stealthy), when they were attacking Tarente or the Bismarck, but they have done the job!
The best example is Osprey. It’s software stack is such a mess each cab is practically a sub-type of its own; no two are the same!
Loss of basic engineering principles when it comes to coding today. A lot of cut and pasting, reliance on automatic testing alone, and even AI written code.
ITP, you seem to believe that software is easy and only the military balls it up. Having worked in risk management on global IT projects I can reassure you that this is not the case. But getting top level software engineers outside “Tech” companies IS the problem. Do you think LM really want to have all the negative publicity that they get. If it was easy they would have thrown money at it and done it. The biggest (market cap) and most profitable company on the planet (Apple) is struggling with its AI implementation on SIRI. It’s only easy in Hollywood!
OkamsRazor
No, I for one certainly do not believe that writing (and then checking) what can often be millions of lines of code for a single military software aplication is easy; indeed = far from it….
However, quite frankly, you have missed the point.
The key point is that these software contractors signed up to legally binding contract terms which siad that they would write software for the F35 and Crowsnest
That in turn leads onto my next point – that the military procurement agencies keep asking for yet more complexity (for example with weaponised UAV’s ) so we keep getting even more software balls up
Frankly I am just waiting for the situation to occur when a mass-casualty incident (note 1) is caused, directly by poorly written software.
That really will put the cat amoungst the pigeons
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
The Post Office Horizon system and Boeing’s 737 max don’t (not quite) count!
Nigel
I can forsee only one problem
..iironically the very same one as the original 1964 era laser-wielding Dalek
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Not yet anyway, but technological advances have a way of solving problems!
NIgel
The Disabled Discrimination Act (DDA) – mandating the installation of sloping access ramps into all publically accesible buildings – may well help them out!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I suspect that there could issues with such a weapon on ship with sophisticated electronics that could be susceptible to damage from such a weapon.
Hello Martin, yes, you make a very good point.
I have a few points on the options & possible solutions that’s been discussed.
Just to add, the key issue with the V22 Osprey. Is that it was designed as a direct replacement for the USMC CH46 Sea Knight. Which meant the cabin had to be capable of seating 24 and be able to lift underslung a M777 plus ammo. However, operating from the Wasp class LHDs placed a number of constraints on the design. The first being able to taxi past the island, but with 3ft prop-rotor tip clearance, The second is that the rear undercarriage wheels had to be at least 3ft from the edge of the deck.
This requirement constrained the width of the wing, which crucially determined the length of the prop-rotors. In general a spinning wing (prop-rotor) produces lift/thrust proportional to the surface area and the local airflow speed over the wing’s surface. As the prop-rotors were shorter than optimal, they have to be spun faster to generate the necessary lift. This results in the Osprey having a higher “rotor” disc loading and a much stronger downwash.
The Bell V280 Valor is a second generation tilt-rotor. Being designed to replace the US Army’s Black Hawk helicopter. As such it has a much smaller cabin, designed to seat 11/12 passengers. But it does not have the wing width constraints. Therefore its prop-rotors are proportional to the calculated max all up weight. Hence why it has a better disc loading and a lesser downwash.
Hi Davey,
I’ve been thinking more about Airlander as an option for naval AEW. Is it really feasible for the primary radar to be hidden inside the envelope, or would that be too much of an issue for maintenance access?
DvaeyB
A minor correction to your timeline and thus also explaining the main reason for developng Osprey tilt-rotor programme
The one key reason for the US developing tiltrotors was as follows::
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
What about using a Chinook? Common airframe, plenty of space and load capacity. Not perfect but pragmatic.
The main reason is there is no marinized version and corrosion is a problem. It is OK having ‘land’ air frames at sea for a week or three for an exercise but living at sea is a different matter. Why Boeing never produced such a version seeing as they have potential customers in the USN, USMC, and USCG nobody knows and it is a question many have asked down the years. Certainly cheaper than CH53x.
Folding rotors are available. There was even work done on a compound variant.
Got to be cheaper than any of the other alternatives of you want something bigger than an X-Band. You would have thought marinisation of Chinook would be a viable commercial proposition even if basket-case Boeing wasn’t the contractor.
Merlin isn’t a bad platform. It is a big aircraft. Much bigger and you start to enter the world of exotica like CH-53x and Mi-26.
If you want to launch a 4.5 tonne sensor from a ship and loft it high you have no option but E2x and CTOL. And to conduct air warfare in the stealth and BVR age you need a big sensor high up or your platform, um, aspirations are going to be limited. Hence the QE’s were never ever going to be front line assets only support assets. The USN builds it surface navy around the carriers to project power forward. RN carriers from the Invincible’s on there to support naval operations bringing extra ASW, AAW, and C4I assets.
If a decent fist of Crowsnest had been made it would have suited the RN. But if you buy cheap you need to buy plenty! An adequately funded RN, and it wouldn’t have cost much more money, would have the ASaC in new cabs in numbers that the RN could have 2 flights at sea. One with the carrier and one elsewhere either with that carrier’s supporting replenishment group or somewhere else altogether. An adequately funded RN would have seen the carriers go to sea with SAMPSON and another 3 Type 45. ** The RN couldn’t even find funding to buy Marte for Merlin so the aircraft has an excellent radar but no long range heavy ASuW weapon. That wouldn’t have cost much as the Italians had done all the work and it would have increased the reach of the surface fleet considerably.
There is a further even wilder option in that when operating in the Med or in seas near friendly bases sending a land based aircraft out to help the carrier. But the RAF doesn’t have enough of such aircraft to have one in the air above the UK all the time let alone 4 or 5 plus supporting aircraft to follow the carrier around the globe.
** Not hard to imagine an AAW cruiser like say the Jeanne D’Arc with capacity for say 5/6 Merlin and a Wildcat for a hack.
The Merlin is the RN existing large helicopter
The RAF version is max takeoff weight of 22 tonnes and payload comes from underslung load Merlin 15.6 tonnes
I dont know what the max ‘cabin design payloads are’
Also the fuel carrying capacity is important , a marine focused helicopter often has more
The RN CARRIERS are not STRIKE CARRIERS ! They were always designed as multi-role carriers with a primary role of amphibious support with air defence & strike duties…
That’s rubbish. Neither of the carriers were ever fitted with even the basic mods needed for amphibious operations and while there was a proposed mod for carrying 250 troops this was never the primary purpose.
I would have to disagree. The reason why the carriers are so large is that CVS showed that space and volume is everything when it comes to aviation support. There is a lot of truth in the old steel and air is cheap never mind taking into account the cost of surface warship is broken down 60% hull and 40% systems. Aircraft were getting larger and even STOVL designs like Bravo do like a run-up. But they were designed from the get as general aviation support ships.
If the RN wanted to build a ‘strike carrier’ it would have had to go with CTOL platform. The pointy bomb truck to one side for the moment a strike package needs SEAD and EW platforms and an airborne ASaC platform to track friendlies and enemies alike and co-ordinate matters. Never mind the matter of mass. Everything the UK could do or want to do in terms of strike would have from a delivery point of view better achieved with a surface ship with a large number of VLS cells filled with TLAM or even Typhoon and tankers from a base. Where is the Bravo version of the Growler? Where is the STOVL ASaC / AEW platform? There are none because the USMC don’t need them……..
Talking of the USMC if the balloon does go up with China the QE’s will probably stuck with the USN Gator ships not at the front getting under the feet of the USN CBG’s. QE’s will probably soak up all the USMC’s Bravos leaving volume free for MV22 in the LHx’s. That’s another reason why the QE is big it can swallow MV-22 and CH-52x……
Now CVS did have a secondary role as LPH’s and though they were used as such they weren’t ideal. As you would know if have spent any time in one of them there be lots of ladders and moving around them if you have to is not fun. And it is even less fun with a rifle and a Bergen. This is the reason why Argus failed when it was trialled in as ‘assault platform’ too FWIW. QE’s were designed to facilitate ‘heliborne assault’ and the broad assault passageways are very much a feature of the ship. It is no longer a test of endurance to get from within to without in them. But other features like racks for rifle etc. were deleted to save pennies. It’s a shame because if they did carry a Close Combat Combat company and a TAC HQ with 8 or so Junglies and a clutch of Wildcat they would be useful. Especially if the RN had a class of large fast LPD to accompany the carrier group with the rest of the commando.
So where does this ‘carrier strike’ business originate? I think it is all political. The RAF was once by bomber pilots and getting them on side was politically important. And ‘strike carrier’ sounds a lot more exciting politically than ‘carrier vessel, large’ or ‘aviation support ship’. This was from the era when Tony Blair saw himself as President of the EU, an equal to POTUS, and he needed to have carries too just like the US. It is one of the reasons why the PRC is building carriers for the PLAN, you need to ape great powers if you aspire to be a great power. It also plays well with the public whose only knowledge of carrier aviation comes courtesy of Tom Cruise. But it is quite clear from what they carry are carries can only be classed as ‘strike assets’ in the loosest of ways.
The French get disparaged here a lot for only having one carrier. But it is a nuclear carrier so it can steam about at full speed all day without putting to much strain on the oilers in the logistic train. They can fly E2 of the CdeG. And the Mistrale-M has a full suite of weapons it can deploy. So yes when the CdeG is dock they have no carrier. But when we have two carriers in service there are toothless and blind. So you tell me which is better? Never mind their surface combatants can carry a cruise missile even it is the short ranged SCALP-N,,,,,
What nonsense! “Toothless and blind” F-35 up against Mirage, I’d like to come visit your alt universe sometime.
Mirage? Who mentioned Mirage?
Rafale-M has………
Air-to-Air MissilesMICA EM (Electromagnetic) and MICA IR (Infrared): Versatile missiles capable of both short and medium-range engagements, featuring fire-and-forget capability and high agility.MBDA Meteor: A beyond-visual-range missile with a ramjet propulsion system, offering extended range and a large no-escape zone. Wikipediaglobalmilitary.netAir-to-Ground MunitionsAASM “Hammer”: A family of precision-guided munitions with variants guided by GPS/INS, laser, or infrared seekers.GBU Series: Laser-guided bombs including GBU-12, GBU-16, GBU-22, and GBU-24, suitable for various target types.SCALP-EG: A long-range cruise missile designed for deep-strike missions against high-value targets. dassault-aviation.comThe Aviationist+1War Thunder — official forum+1globalmilitary.netAnti-Ship WeaponryAM39 Exocet: A sea-skimming anti-ship missile effective against various naval vessels. dassault-aviation.comNuclear CapabilityASMP-A with TNA Warhead: A supersonic air-launched cruise missile equipped with a thermonuclear warhead, forming part of France’s nuclear deterrent. WikipediaInternal Cannon30 mm NEXTER 30M791: An internal cannon capable of firing up to 2,500 rounds per minute, used for close-range combat and strafing runs. Niladri Sekhar BoseAdditional SystemsTargeting Pods: Integration of systems like the Thales TALIOS for advanced targeting capabilities.Refueling Pods: Capability for buddy-buddy aerial refueling missions, extending operational range. The Aviationist+1War Thunder — official forum+1dassault-aviation.com
Where as British Bravo has…………
ASRAAM (Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile) A high-speed, heat-seeking missile developed by MBDA UK, ASRAAM is designed for short-range engagements, allowing pilots to engage enemy aircraft with precision. GOV.UK+1Wikipedia+1Meteor This beyond-visual-range missile, also developed by MBDA, offers exceptional long-range performance and active radar guidance. Integration onto the F-35B is underway, with full operational capability anticipated by 2027. Wikipedia+3UK Defence Journal+3Wikipedia+3🔹 Air-to-Ground WeaponsPaveway IV A precision-guided bomb manufactured by Raytheon UK, Paveway IV combines GPS/INS and laser guidance systems. It’s effective against a variety of ground targets and has been operational on the F-35B since its early service.
Now Bravo does have a better RADAR…….
Air-to-air detection range:
Air-to-ground modes (synthetic aperture radar, ground moving target indicator):
Compared to the French plane’s………..
The RBE2-AA radar boasts a detection range exceeding 200 km, with some sources indicating it can reach up to 220 km under optimal conditions. This extended range enables the Rafale M to effectively utilize long-range air-to-air missiles like the Meteor, ensuring superior engagement capabilities in various combat scenarios .Thales Group+3defenceturkey.com+3f-16.net+3
🔍 Additional CapabilitiesBeyond its impressive range, the RBE2-AA radar offers:
Wide-Angle Scanning: It can scan an area of 140°, providing comprehensive situational awareness.defenceturkey.comMulti-Target Tracking: The radar can track up to 40 targets simultaneously and engage up to 8 of them at once, enhancing the Rafale M’s effectiveness in complex combat environments .Wikipedia+10f-16.net+10War Thunder — official forum+10Enhanced Reliability: The use of Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) transmit/receive modules contributes to higher reliability and reduced maintenance requirements
…….but the French also have E2……………
The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is the latest variant of the E-2 series of airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft, designed primarily for the U.S. Navy. It’s equipped with the AN/APY-9 radar, which is a powerful Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar developed by Northrop Grumman.
🔍 Radar Range (AN/APY-9):Detection Range: The official range is classified, but open sources estimate it to be over 300 nautical miles (nm) (~555 km) for large aerial targets under optimal conditions.For fighter-sized targets, estimates put the detection range around 200–250 nm (370–460 km), depending on altitude and radar cross-section.The radar can also track over 2,000 targets simultaneously across sea, air, and land domains.🛰 Key Capabilities:360-degree coverage with a mechanically rotating radar dome and AESA technology.Simultaneous air and sea surveillance.Enhanced target discrimination (can differentiate between low-flying aircraft and sea clutter).High resistance to jamming and improved low-probability-of-intercept operation.ASaC Role:While “ASaC” (Airborne Surveillance and Control) is more often associated with UK Royal Navy platforms like the Crowsnest system on Merlin helicopters, the E-2D fulfills a very similar role in the AEW&C (Airborne Early Warning and Control) space.
So your Bravo has toddle off across the horizon not know what is out there as there is no real ASaC / AEW capability. And a lot of the time has to fly directly to the target because it can’t stand off so completely negating the stealth capability.
CdeG can carry as many Rafale-M at the total F35b owns.
That’s the first time I have had a go at AI. I can’t be bothered to proof read.
Mirage/Rafale same difference. 4th gen against 5th gen, no competition except in B movie’s and teenage video games.
Okamsrazor
Despite us two recently “agreeing to disagee” about various other subjects
and for any modern strike aircaft which is going to be operating up against the very effective Russian (ex Soviet) or Chinese air defence systems
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
Mind you it has to be said that it would be very nice if the RN/RAF F35’s now had the weapons “fit” actually fitted to them that was, by now, supoosed to be fitted to them ……
.. i.e. what we have already paid out a lot of money to have fitted!.
I don’t think either of you quite grasp the problem or understand the technology.
Stealth is no good if you have to be right on top of the target to deliver it. And right on top of the target is getting further and further away with each new weapon.
We live in age where stealth though desirable modern sensors are starting to work around. The job of fast pointy bomb truck is to take their weapons to launch position more than actually engage in combat themselves. In the USN air-to-air combat is now conducted at BVR with E2 directing missiles on to targets. The FA18 have already turned for mother before the enemy have seen them clearly to take a shot if dependent on their onboard radar.
I think you need to go look up at how visible Bravo is in the real world. I think you are in for a shock. Remember back in the 70s weapons like SeaWolf were already tracking and hitting 4.5in shells; today SAMPSON can track targets at high Mach the size of a tennis ball and that it tech getting on for 20 years old.
We are PAYING for weapons integration still we haven’t paid for it. You would think a AShM would be a priority for a navy.
So we have no decent modern ASaC bird. Two conventional carriers dependent on the tankers for others. And hardly any weapons integrated on to naval fighter. But that all counts for nothing because of stealth even though modern tech is mitigating that year on year.
Whale Island Zookeper
Sorry…… wrong ……. I do fully understand the technology
…..and thus I fully understand the very big, and also fairly fundamental challenge, of hitting a heavily defended target accurately with precision guided conventional weapons dropped from a flying machine which is manouvering at either high or low allitude
Any 4th generation strike aircraft will, quite frankly, not stand a chance in any modern heavily defended airspace, either at high or low allitude
—————–
When considering stealth (low observable) planes like the F35 it is very important to make the key distinction between
That key distinction (tracking vis detection) is THE very big difference between 4th and 5th generation jets
…..and why the F35 has a radar signature much smaller than a tennis ball
—————————-
Then, for air to air
“In the USN air-to-air combat is now conducted at BVR with E2 directing missiles on to targets”.
the E2 Hawkeye is bascially 1960’s tech and the F18 Hornet is basically 1970’s tech
…… so no surprise that the two combined can do this
Indeed the very old now-retired USN 1970’s Phoenix AAM missile – with its effective range of over 100 miles – was, when it was orginally fitted on to Tom Cruise’s top gun F14 Tomcat – was designed to do exactly this same job (i.e. to be able to hit an enemy plane at well beyond visual range and without any giving the enemy Biggles any warning)
———–
This issue is fundamentally the very same one that was being actively dealt with by war planners back in the 1980’s – and it was the key issue which then came to a head in early 1991
During Gulf War One, which was the last proper big shooting match involving NATO specfication 4th and 5th generation aircraft:
—————————
However, you are quite right that those very early advantages of stealth are (slowly) being erroded
So, since 1991, both the “always very good” Russian and the “now rapidly improving” Chinese air defences, have been significantly improved.
(and why Israel very recently bombed the S**t out of much of Iran’s air defence network)
Therefore, during the current Ukranine war (2002 to date) it has been quite noticeable that manned airpower has not played a very big part at all (Note: despite all those very earlly predictions from the tossers “employed” at the RUSI)
Hence my own early predications, made three years ago here on NL, that the use by Ukraine of the NATO F16 fighter would not be a big game changer…..
And the total loss rates to AAD of all cruise missles and drones etc – fired by both Ukraine and Russia – appears to be running at about 80% – 90% plus (so only one in five or one in ten are catully getting through to actually hit the intended target)
———————————————-
Therefore, to hit heavily defended target today, what is now needed:
Therefore
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
Peter.
Densely defended target area?
When using a Scalp-EG/Storm Shadow, there is no debate between Gen4 or 5 bomber. Range is about 500 km, away from SAM radar detection.
Even better: use a MdCn cruise missile launched from a frigate. No need for an aircraft.
Of course, this implies the target is not too far from the sea (800 to 1000 km).
But isn’t it the same thing for a CsG?
Little Froggy
I agree
However – big but – all types of cruise missiles, everything developed from the V1 onwards, can be shot down ….
Worth pointing out here that back in the late 1970’s, the USAF very seriously considered using Boeing 747 Jumbo Jets fitted with huge rotating launchers: to air launch hundreds of the Boeing Air Launched Cruise Mislses (ALCM) (note 1) at key Soviet targets
That study proved the concept of a saturation attack by many cruise missles would have worked very well, mainly by overwhelming air defences
However USAF top biggles really did not want to be flying commecial; airliners: so they went ono to develop stealth instead
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
USAF ALCM = looked and performed very like the USN Tomahawks
We are already at the point where missiles operated at BVR are the only way to conduct air-to-air combat. You are also not considering the absence of signature is signature itself.
WIZ
My comments were mostly about Strike Aircraft (not defensive fighters)
I will agree with you that BVR is definitely “the way to go” for most future AAM’s
I will however disgree with you about your suggestion that this near future BVR missile should be targeted by an old E2 Hawkeyes AEW radar
That is definitely not the way to go…..
————-
The main disadvantage of using our own AEW when we are up against a properly equipped peer-on-peer opponent is that our airborne radar plane itself can easily be targetted, for example with:
Thus it is quite noticeable (however details are (unsurprisingly) very scarce) that the best Ukrainian air defence units have been quite deliberately targeting those few Russian AEW planes
US Confirms Ukraine’s Patriots Downed Putin’s Rare Radar Plane: ‘Historic’ – Newsweek
Also don’t lets forget that, when out at sea, emitting very strong radar waves (from either your own plane or a ship) immediately gives ones own position away (i.e. by enemy radio direction finding)
Thus I am still a Very Big Fan of EMCON
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
EMCOM- Emissions Control – the black art of staying very silent when playing deadly hide and seek…..plugging the electrical extension lead off the ship’s radar set…..
What about using the V-22 framework as AEW/ASW platform I know it had its problems but it could work and may get some interest from the USN/USMC
Too expensive and unreliable.
Could a modern day version of the fairy Gannet (11t) land/takeoff from a 900ft deck with a ramp? Without cats/traps.
.
The original couldn’t but engine technology has moved on. The ramp is a problem for propeller aircraft though.
power would be double, new engines same size as old.
AEW version did carry a radar set probably much heavier than current one’s due to tech at the time, perhaps fit typhoon radar? x2?
Airframe folds small for storage as designed.
could deck run off port side where a waist catapult could be fitted (assuming it wont go up the ramp). arrestor wires are could be installed as space has been left, if required.(bonus getting wires!)
RN are not keen on E2D, it can take off via the ramp but if an engine fails on takeff the lose the plane, left or right into the sea.
An updated version with things like blown flaps would land at a slow speed.
could convert to drone as well. flys higher so more radar range, longer endurance, and saves helicopters!
And if you have an AEW version flying, making another variant as an airborne refueling version is a no brainer.
Ideally I suppose we need a rolling takeoff/near vertical landing aircraft of around 22tons/320kts/10000mts+ceiling/7hrs Endurance!… Anyone got any suggestions !
CASA C-212 Aviocar
P-750 XSTOL III Multirole
Sounds something like a Rotodyne!