Future Carrier (Including Costs)
I know - even if it wasn't expensive to operate, the logs chain for an a/c that age wouldn't be sustainable for RN alone. Shame how the good platforms (F14, A6, S3) always end up being replaced by something allegedly cheaper, but less capable (at least airframe-wise).
I was thinking more along the lines of whatever comes after C2/E2, although given that Hawkeye is still rolling off the line, I wonder what sort of tanker a KC2 would make? Probably just too slow I suspect, but there's your MASC, COD and AAR all in the one similar airframe.
I was thinking more along the lines of whatever comes after C2/E2, although given that Hawkeye is still rolling off the line, I wonder what sort of tanker a KC2 would make? Probably just too slow I suspect, but there's your MASC, COD and AAR all in the one similar airframe.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, AAR is not the mission of choice for Rhino pilots although it does rack up the flight hours. CVNs always have an AAR configured Hornet airborne during flight ops, two at nightime.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised Boeing have not more actively pursued producing a pressurised version of the V-22. Although it's an expensive platform, it has huge potential as an AR/EW asset and could potentially operate from smaller STOVL carriers.
Although the E-2 is still being produced, it's virtually a different design to the original with modern design concepts adopted for the avionics. The same could have been done for the S-3 but unfortunately wasn't. Modern fighters such as the F-35 should be able to tank off a KC-2 or KV-22 no problems in the same way as KC-130s.
Although the E-2 is still being produced, it's virtually a different design to the original with modern design concepts adopted for the avionics. The same could have been done for the S-3 but unfortunately wasn't. Modern fighters such as the F-35 should be able to tank off a KC-2 or KV-22 no problems in the same way as KC-130s.
The reason that you probably won't see F-35B as a buddy tanker is that it can't actually carry that much fuel. Internal fuel fraction is a standard fighter number (0.3) and the max external configuration is two 425 gal tanks. I don't know that it can even STO with more than that.
The Super Hornet does the tanker mission with four standard 480 gal tanks and a centerline buddy tank of about the same size. I expect that the Block 1 F/A-18Es will continue to be used in that role as the Block 2s and AESAs come in.
The Super Hornet does the tanker mission with four standard 480 gal tanks and a centerline buddy tank of about the same size. I expect that the Block 1 F/A-18Es will continue to be used in that role as the Block 2s and AESAs come in.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rejoining... and enjoying some very well informed discussion. Thanks to all who actually read these posts...
A couple of points. MM's assessment of combat radius does draw out the key fact that F-35 is designed to do its combat mission without external tanks, whereas Typhoon really needs external taks to do any sort of strike mission. That's a key difference between a strike design and a fighter design. Both good aircraft, but very different design philosophies.
MM's estimate for the impact on Typhoon range of tanks is, in my view, optimistic. External tanks on a relatively small aircraft like Typhoon have a BIG drag penalty, and you will normally only get a 35 to 45%(max) return on the fuel you carry - the rest goes to overcome the drag of the tanks.
F-35 has AAR as standard, the A model has the USAF top fuselage boom receptacle, B and C a neat probe on the starboard side of the nose. External tanks have been dropped from the SDD phase apparently, but they are still in the design for the future, and they are being catered for in the various weapons configurations.
MM - the F-35C take off run will depend on weight and wing area (among other things) and it will only be 'respectably short' if it is not fully loaded. But fully agree your point about potential trades.
Regards
Engines
A couple of points. MM's assessment of combat radius does draw out the key fact that F-35 is designed to do its combat mission without external tanks, whereas Typhoon really needs external taks to do any sort of strike mission. That's a key difference between a strike design and a fighter design. Both good aircraft, but very different design philosophies.
MM's estimate for the impact on Typhoon range of tanks is, in my view, optimistic. External tanks on a relatively small aircraft like Typhoon have a BIG drag penalty, and you will normally only get a 35 to 45%(max) return on the fuel you carry - the rest goes to overcome the drag of the tanks.
F-35 has AAR as standard, the A model has the USAF top fuselage boom receptacle, B and C a neat probe on the starboard side of the nose. External tanks have been dropped from the SDD phase apparently, but they are still in the design for the future, and they are being catered for in the various weapons configurations.
MM - the F-35C take off run will depend on weight and wing area (among other things) and it will only be 'respectably short' if it is not fully loaded. But fully agree your point about potential trades.
Regards
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 1st Jul 2007 at 19:28. Reason: Spell check
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£3.5bn aircraft-carrier deal is delayed again
BAE and VT in limbo as £3.5bn aircraft-carrier deal is delayed again
Published: 01 July 2007
I wonder what else happens in October? Oh yes, I remember!
Comprehensive Spending Review
Published: 01 July 2007
The Government won't give its final approval for the construction of two new aircraft carriers until at least October, according to industry sources.
Comprehensive Spending Review
Well we'll see. I note the Indy's factual base is as good as ever - KBR have been off the job for some time now.
Nevertheless, this cannot go on much longer. Thank the good lord we have Lord Drayson fully in charge - I'm sure that his well-earned reputation for delivery will overcome whatever arguments the treasury construct and convince VT and BAES that of course he can deliver the order if they merge their shipbuilding units.
Nevertheless, this cannot go on much longer. Thank the good lord we have Lord Drayson fully in charge - I'm sure that his well-earned reputation for delivery will overcome whatever arguments the treasury construct and convince VT and BAES that of course he can deliver the order if they merge their shipbuilding units.
Engines,
The whole internal-fuel piece is an interesting story. When the DARPA effort that led to the JSF got started, and when the idea of producing a CTOL version of a fan-boosted STOVL was first talked about (very early 1990s), people realized that if the STOVL variant was to have a normal fuel fraction (0.3) then the CTOL version would have a big one, which appealed to the USAF at the time because of the transition from European scenarios and ranges to the rest of the world. That became part of JSF and even the Boeing design (whch did not lose as much hardware in its CTOL version) had massive fuel capacity.
However, although people diss external fuel and point to its penalties, adding internal costs too... and the structure and volume for internal fuel has to last the life of the aircraft and is along for every mission, and does not provide the option of dropping the tanks. And all salesmanship aside, I've seen charts claiming a range for the F-16 that's similar to a JSF-A.. and in a sense those are a real comparison until the JSF-A/C get an external fuel option.
The whole internal-fuel piece is an interesting story. When the DARPA effort that led to the JSF got started, and when the idea of producing a CTOL version of a fan-boosted STOVL was first talked about (very early 1990s), people realized that if the STOVL variant was to have a normal fuel fraction (0.3) then the CTOL version would have a big one, which appealed to the USAF at the time because of the transition from European scenarios and ranges to the rest of the world. That became part of JSF and even the Boeing design (whch did not lose as much hardware in its CTOL version) had massive fuel capacity.
However, although people diss external fuel and point to its penalties, adding internal costs too... and the structure and volume for internal fuel has to last the life of the aircraft and is along for every mission, and does not provide the option of dropping the tanks. And all salesmanship aside, I've seen charts claiming a range for the F-16 that's similar to a JSF-A.. and in a sense those are a real comparison until the JSF-A/C get an external fuel option.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LowObservable,
You are right on the money here. Internal fuel fraction is a key design driver, and can be driven by lots of factors. High speed over long ranges often drives a low drag requirement, e.g. Mosquito. Coming further along, stealth has driven the need, and you get machines like the F-22, which has got HUGE to get supercruise, endurance, and LO - fuel fraction was a real headache for them, so size went up to get the fuel in, so I'm told.
For F-35B, the bar is set even higher because of the loss of internal volume to the lift fan - and you are correct in that the basic design has LOTS of fuel volume as a result (F-35A and C get a large fuselage tank in lieu of the fan). Which makes the F-35B achievement all the more remarkable. A nice by-product of a large fuel fraction is a very large fuel/payload fraction - if you are prepared to launch and tank, the weapon loads can be startling. Might be like that for the F-35.
External fuel tanks are a very efficient way of adding fuel to an aircraft - easier than building tank space inside the external contours! But boy, are they draggy - the recent moves to 'faired' tanks are an attempt to reduce that penalty. In the past, some aircraft (Lightning, Tornado, Starfighter, neded external tanks at all times to be operationally effective. You have to ask whether the tanks were compensation for the design missing the point (although to be fair, the 'point' often gets moved while the thing is being built).
And as I said, F-35 does have an external fuel option - it's just been punted down the track a few years - F-22 did exactly the same. The tanks are designed, and the pylons are plumbed.
Regards
Engines
You are right on the money here. Internal fuel fraction is a key design driver, and can be driven by lots of factors. High speed over long ranges often drives a low drag requirement, e.g. Mosquito. Coming further along, stealth has driven the need, and you get machines like the F-22, which has got HUGE to get supercruise, endurance, and LO - fuel fraction was a real headache for them, so size went up to get the fuel in, so I'm told.
For F-35B, the bar is set even higher because of the loss of internal volume to the lift fan - and you are correct in that the basic design has LOTS of fuel volume as a result (F-35A and C get a large fuselage tank in lieu of the fan). Which makes the F-35B achievement all the more remarkable. A nice by-product of a large fuel fraction is a very large fuel/payload fraction - if you are prepared to launch and tank, the weapon loads can be startling. Might be like that for the F-35.
External fuel tanks are a very efficient way of adding fuel to an aircraft - easier than building tank space inside the external contours! But boy, are they draggy - the recent moves to 'faired' tanks are an attempt to reduce that penalty. In the past, some aircraft (Lightning, Tornado, Starfighter, neded external tanks at all times to be operationally effective. You have to ask whether the tanks were compensation for the design missing the point (although to be fair, the 'point' often gets moved while the thing is being built).
And as I said, F-35 does have an external fuel option - it's just been punted down the track a few years - F-22 did exactly the same. The tanks are designed, and the pylons are plumbed.
Regards
Engines
Engines - one benefit of external "drop" tanks vs conformals/internal is the ability to ditch them and run away bravely! On a jet such as the tornado the difference this makes should not be underestimated in terms of survivability! Although admittedly it would be nice to have the structure to hold it all internally and still pull some G!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Internal Fuel
pba_target:
I have heard this justification many times, but have heard of very few occasions when it actually happened - and aircraft fleets carrying 'drop' tanks have rarely been provisioned for tank expenditure.
In my view, most aircraft carrying externals in recent years have done so because they were built down to a cost (so down to a size) or down to a requirement (Lightning was a classic example), so the tanks are a cheap(er) fix for lack of range.
Going to faired tanks makes jettison all but impossible - and that's the way things are going. (F-15, F-16, Typhoon).
BTW, internal fuel also makes a great heat sink - important when LO means that you can't have all the external scoops and exhausts legacy aircraft used to keep cool.
Regards
I have heard this justification many times, but have heard of very few occasions when it actually happened - and aircraft fleets carrying 'drop' tanks have rarely been provisioned for tank expenditure.
In my view, most aircraft carrying externals in recent years have done so because they were built down to a cost (so down to a size) or down to a requirement (Lightning was a classic example), so the tanks are a cheap(er) fix for lack of range.
Going to faired tanks makes jettison all but impossible - and that's the way things are going. (F-15, F-16, Typhoon).
BTW, internal fuel also makes a great heat sink - important when LO means that you can't have all the external scoops and exhausts legacy aircraft used to keep cool.
Regards
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines. A very good point; and if they were provisioned, some shiny bum would insist that you gashed them. NAO Report: Progress in Reducing Stocks, REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HC 898 Session 2001-2002: 20 June 2002 ( http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n.../0102898es.pdf ) . Executive Summary para 10 quotes "Air holds 440 years worth (at peace time rates of consumption) of fuel tanks worth £41 million. During military operations the tanks would be used at a faster rate but the Department has not yet completed its analysis to determine future requirements. In order to meet sustainability and readiness targets there is a requirement to hold stocks during peacetime but there is a need for stocks to be regularly monitored and for operational users to keep their requirements under review."
I was only concerned with the dark blue floaty elements at the time but, as I remember it, these were Tonka drop tanks with, surprise, surprise, sod all consumption rate. Now I don't know what the outcome was but I would imagine that the inventory manager would have been under considerable pressure to get his Global stock to less than 10 years normal usage; particularly as they were to be "hit" with a RAB charge (6% at the time, I recall) on the stock value. Bear in mind that the stock was already paid for and would only have a residual value of its material scrap rate. The only real additional cost of the kit was storage and its place in the stock taking cycle.
I was only concerned with the dark blue floaty elements at the time but, as I remember it, these were Tonka drop tanks with, surprise, surprise, sod all consumption rate. Now I don't know what the outcome was but I would imagine that the inventory manager would have been under considerable pressure to get his Global stock to less than 10 years normal usage; particularly as they were to be "hit" with a RAB charge (6% at the time, I recall) on the stock value. Bear in mind that the stock was already paid for and would only have a residual value of its material scrap rate. The only real additional cost of the kit was storage and its place in the stock taking cycle.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golf Bravo Zulu:
My own experience was also with dark blue floaty things and we certainly had very few drop tanks in storage. I'm not in the least surprised that other services had mountains of drop tanks lying in storage.
The real scandal is the way that millions of taxpayer pounds were spent buying tanks in numbers that rested on questionable of assumptions. However, to be fair, people did not make them up out of knavery - just having to hazard a guess with little backup.
Linking this back to Future Carrier - drop tank stowages can be extremely emotive - they are real space gobblers, hard to get at, absolute swines to maintain, and rarely in the right number or right place. If the sort of provisioning rates were applied to carrier borne aircraft, we'd need one carrier just to carry spare drop tanks for the other one!
My experience of using tanks from deep storage was that after a few years, these items were basically useless (out of mod state and all seals dried up).
Regards
Engines
My own experience was also with dark blue floaty things and we certainly had very few drop tanks in storage. I'm not in the least surprised that other services had mountains of drop tanks lying in storage.
The real scandal is the way that millions of taxpayer pounds were spent buying tanks in numbers that rested on questionable of assumptions. However, to be fair, people did not make them up out of knavery - just having to hazard a guess with little backup.
Linking this back to Future Carrier - drop tank stowages can be extremely emotive - they are real space gobblers, hard to get at, absolute swines to maintain, and rarely in the right number or right place. If the sort of provisioning rates were applied to carrier borne aircraft, we'd need one carrier just to carry spare drop tanks for the other one!
My experience of using tanks from deep storage was that after a few years, these items were basically useless (out of mod state and all seals dried up).
Regards
Engines
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard this justification many times, but have heard of very few occasions when it actually happened
During the early stages of OEF during 01-03, I can't think of many times aircraft dropped their bags.
However, during Bosnia and particularly Kosovo, aircraft defending against SAMs/AAA or accelerating to an intercept would regularly punch off tanks. From memory, I'd say just about every package my crew controlled during the Kosovo campaign had at least some aircraft jettison their tanks. Sweep and SEAD were the most common as they were the ones who stooged around longest and would often be targeted. Check out soom of the GR1 videos from Kosovo. You'll see quite a large number of tanks being left behind then.
Likewise, tank expenditure in GW1 was very high.
Regards,
MM
Thread Starter
So are drop tank stowages an important part of maintaining high sortie rates from the deck? What do the USN do? Surely CVF will have reasonable stowages?
Navaleye
Time has moved on and we have to look forwards not backwards. The GR9 puts the fleet back 25+ years as far as AD is concerned, its hopeless, let face the facts. As far as strike goes, then its much better. History teaches everyone that both are equally important. As of now, JFH cannot equip even one CVS for anything apart from the odd ex once a year, lets not kid ourselves any more. The so called "Naval Air Wing" can not muster more than a handful of a/c or pilots and certainly cannot provide an airgroup for a CVS. We are in a much worse state than 25 yrs ago. How we get from here to a fully worked up CVF airgroup is beyond me. Things are that bad. Our current on call strike carrier has no air group and has to borrow one from the USMC. What a state of affairs.
Depressing isn't it? All these problems were predicted on the Sea Jet thread. At least the embarkation of the USMC Harriers will provide the flight deck crew with experience of operating fixed wing aircraft. There is a danger of serious skill fade because of the reduction in aircraft numbers, which can only make the transition from CVS to CVF more problematic.
Magic Mushrooom
I suggested using the Osprey for limited organic AAR several years ago on the Sea Jet thread! I can't remember what response I got, if any. It could also perform COD duties. The idea of the Americans integrating radar and mission systems into the beast (saving us the expense) seems too good to be true.
Navaleye
Time has moved on and we have to look forwards not backwards. The GR9 puts the fleet back 25+ years as far as AD is concerned, its hopeless, let face the facts. As far as strike goes, then its much better. History teaches everyone that both are equally important. As of now, JFH cannot equip even one CVS for anything apart from the odd ex once a year, lets not kid ourselves any more. The so called "Naval Air Wing" can not muster more than a handful of a/c or pilots and certainly cannot provide an airgroup for a CVS. We are in a much worse state than 25 yrs ago. How we get from here to a fully worked up CVF airgroup is beyond me. Things are that bad. Our current on call strike carrier has no air group and has to borrow one from the USMC. What a state of affairs.
Depressing isn't it? All these problems were predicted on the Sea Jet thread. At least the embarkation of the USMC Harriers will provide the flight deck crew with experience of operating fixed wing aircraft. There is a danger of serious skill fade because of the reduction in aircraft numbers, which can only make the transition from CVS to CVF more problematic.
Magic Mushrooom
I suggested using the Osprey for limited organic AAR several years ago on the Sea Jet thread! I can't remember what response I got, if any. It could also perform COD duties. The idea of the Americans integrating radar and mission systems into the beast (saving us the expense) seems too good to be true.
As posted somewhere before. What the Telegraph article means is that the Carrier Alliance currently has no contractual cover (it ran out at end June) and are therefore working at risk. The last time this happened, the offices were stripped of people (all contracts finished) and it took a long time and a LOT of money to get back up to speed.
On drop tanks...
It's not surprising that drop rates sink to zero for long periods. There's no need to drop in training - if you need to train without tanks you can do that. But if you need to meet a spec that may call for a XXX mile radius and the ability at mid-mission to meet sustained g, Mach, acceleration or whatever, then drop tanks do the job with a smaller and less expensive airframe.
When do you actually need to do it? Only when there's a Flanker over there pawing the ground and glaring at you, or when the merry music of the EW indicates that there is something long, hot and fast headed your way and it is unconvinced by your TRD.
It's not surprising that drop rates sink to zero for long periods. There's no need to drop in training - if you need to train without tanks you can do that. But if you need to meet a spec that may call for a XXX mile radius and the ability at mid-mission to meet sustained g, Mach, acceleration or whatever, then drop tanks do the job with a smaller and less expensive airframe.
When do you actually need to do it? Only when there's a Flanker over there pawing the ground and glaring at you, or when the merry music of the EW indicates that there is something long, hot and fast headed your way and it is unconvinced by your TRD.
WEBF,
The problem with the V-22 as a tanker is that total payload is not that great - the beast weighs some 15 t empty and just under 25 t with a ground roll, and I don't know at what weight it can reach a sensible refuelling altitude or how long that will take, and how much fuel it will burn in the process. In any case, how much fuel can the V-22 give out, at what radius, at an altitude/speed that a fighter can live with?
My guess is not very much.
The problem with the V-22 as a tanker is that total payload is not that great - the beast weighs some 15 t empty and just under 25 t with a ground roll, and I don't know at what weight it can reach a sensible refuelling altitude or how long that will take, and how much fuel it will burn in the process. In any case, how much fuel can the V-22 give out, at what radius, at an altitude/speed that a fighter can live with?
My guess is not very much.