"Tidespring has been sat off Lands End all day."

Parked up in Falmouth Roads last night around 19:00 - 19:30 - presumably waiting for

a) 1st April for some strange contractual reason

b) phot-op in daylight hours

c) waiting on the cruise liner Boudicca to leave A&P Saturday night

HH

Why don't you tell us, you seem to be an expert at everything else...

ORAC

Interesting point about land based AAR - I was at school during GW1 and the build up, and certainly remember coverage of USN F-14 Tomcats being refuelled by RAF tankers - presumably to extend their CAPing time?

Did all carrier based aircraft need AAR to strike Iraqi targets? What about land based ones? Did it make a difference if the targets were in the South of Iraq? Could carrier based aircraft hit Iraqi targets from the Arabian Sea rather than the Gulf per se? They did in 1991.

Do AAR tankers have a longer range than fighters/strike aircraft? Are there any political differences in basing tankers/transports in country X, and basing tooled up jets with bombs and missiles?

What about times when carrier aircraft have operated without AAR - such as the Falklands or the 1986 strikes against Libya?

You see the claim that "carrier aircraft will always need land based AAR" seems a bit simplistic, as does the related claim that if you are using land based tankers, why not base the strike aircraft at the same place - which misses the point that it means more aircraft are needed, and means all sorts of diplomatic issues. You still have issues of logistics (how do you move large amounts of fuel around - by ship?). I also seem to remember that in 2011, RAF units based at a NATO base in Italy needed something like two hundred vehicles to keep it supplied. Then there was ship C2 and ISTAR.....

WEBF, here's a simple truth. Land based air will always be required, unless you own a carrier fleet of the size and configuration of the USN - even the WWII Pacific campaign showed the necessity of land based air power.

UK carriers won't have the weight and quantity of firepower of the CVNs. We have to be realistic. The USN pack a punch and we'll most likely be there with them when they do but solo major combat ops is a fallacy without either the French and/or US alongside - we could pack a hefty slap alone.

There are targets that the CVNs air wing cannot hit without land-based AAR. If you want permanence/endurance for CAS or OCA, at range, then land-based AAR is a must.

Today we fight Joint, and tomorrow is no different. The single-role/Service one-stop shop attitude is archaic and wrong.

WEBF - I was answering another post - no need to get all bent out of shape - it's news when any new ship turns up for the RN these days I'd have thought

And if you're interested she's currently parked between the Helford River and Gilly Beach Cafe............ looks quite small TBH

Indeed, this is all about joint power projection and nothing akin to US carrier groups. The RN is simply incapable of putting together its own self-supporting carrier group. The cuts have been too deep and it simply does not have the capacity to put together a group of ships that are fuelled, fully armed, manned, trained and equipped for independent ops - let alone sail such a group as a matter of routine.

The USN may make this look easy, but it is anything but and it costs more treasure than our Treasury is willing to accept.

Land-based AAR is particularly important when you buy an airplane that has a decidedly average 0.3 internal fuel fraction and short stumpy wings, and has no ability to carry drop tanks. Note that advertised combat radius for the B model is all-high-altitude, too.

She weighs nearly 40,000 tonnes and is 200m long - thats roughly the length of an Invincible class carrier, and nearly twice the displacement!

George, the F-35 can carry drop tanks. Stop making rubbish up to suit your contemptuous narrative. You can levy all the criticism you wish but it's wasted effort, because the jets are being bought and will continue to be bought. End of story.

Bit like Brexit!

Quite but, there are penalties of carrying external stores/tanks.
To my mind, the main issue is the v.poor cost/capability/applicability/vulnerability of the whole expeditionary concept of this "UK Carrier group". The carrier(s) will not be doing much IMO. The F-35's OTOH will be much better VFM to the RAF/UK in a land based role. That is the way it will go as the £££ run out, IMO.:oh:

OAP

Yes, there are penalties for carrying stuff externally, in terms of both drag and stealth qualities. Both of these factors have been studied for F-35 and the impacts are known.

As for the "high-level" ranges, saying that has the same validity as quoting low level ranges for an airliner. The differences between medium and high altitude aren't as big as George would generalise. He's right about the fraction though. But, nobody is concerned about it. A lot of people equate range to capability and it depends on what the context is. If it's attacking something then you can make up for shorter aircraft range with weapon range. If it's an air-to-air mission then quite a lot of the fuel is often burned in the tactics, which might be different for 5th gen, so one shouldn't conflate the two.

MSOCS

Please attach, or link to, a photo of an F-35B with drop tanks. Or a photo of a real full-scale F-35B-compatible tank. Or even an official document with a schedule for developing and testing such a thing.

For fact-driven readers: for one reason or another the F-35's 426 USG custom-designed tank was dropped from the program nine years ago. There's been mention of an Israeli F-35A tank but not recently.

As it is... if anyone here can mention a modern combat aircraft that has a shorter range than an F-35B, carrying two 1000 lb bombs and two AAMs, I would be fascinated to hear about it. While the New Age theory may be that air power is no longer about mobility, not everyone subscribes to it.

George. Choose your own words carefully then. You said is wasn't able to carry drop tanks. It is. The 426 Gal DTs were designed. We voted to drop them out of SDD in 2010 (not 9 years ago) because the fuel fraction gained relative to the internal total wasn't worth it.

Bottom line: the aircraft IS able to carry DTs but we dropped them (excuse pun). If that changes in the future I'll happily send you a photo. As I said, you're wasting your time with your negative bias - the jets are being bought (UK get 8 delivered this year). If you think your comments here will turn political and military decision making I wish you luck.

Glad things are better regarding the externals than during my time. Back then all the internal plumbing was being deleted from the B as part of the weight reduction and minor structural changes. I hadn't realised that this position had been reversed.

JTO - I'm sure that the plumbing can all be reinstalled easily. Overnight on the flight-line with a $4,999.95 mod kit, plus a couple of tubes of Amazing Goop.

MSOCS - So obviously it can't carry tanks today (as I said, present tense, "has no ability to carry drop tanks"), or until someone ponies up for complete design, development, testing and any necessary airplane mods, which nobody wants to do. It's not a question of "hey, tanks would be useful, someone get on the phone to Cobham and order 48 sets for overnight delivery." You could have clarified that in the first place before posting a condescending and insulting response.

However, the excuse about fuel fraction is significant. On most fighters, ~40 per cent more fuel is considered pretty useful - so why isn't it worthwhile for JSF, given that it is likely to be called on to operate in a lot of less-than-max-threat environments? Could it be that the L/D falls off a cliff above the clean gross weight?

George, the jet HAS the ability to carry DTs. They haven't been tested and given a clearance. There's a huge difference. E.g if the pylons aren't wet-plumbed there is no ability to carry usable DTs. That is not the case here. As and when the Services pony up the money for test it's there.

You can guess if you wish but the average fuel improvement with DTs was around 9%. That wasn't worth it.

Hoo boy, 9% gain* for 40% more gas. So what happens to the WonderJet's radius of action when I start loading the pylons with stuff that adds weight and drag and doesn't make the engine go, because I might want to carry more ordnance than an A-29? I'll take "down the *****er" for $20, Pat!

And from what you say, it's not so much that they haven't been tested as that they don't do anything useful.

*surely you mean "performance" rather than "fuel", 'cos I'm not guessing when I calculate 950 USG of drop tank gas relative to 13 klb internal.

You are beginning to sound like an old poster here, who used to rant as an Aviation Week hack but was hired by NG.

Winks.

PS - yes, it's a performance increase not a fuel increase. My poor use of language.

That's the second "poor use of language"* in a couple of pages.

* aka "unclear, bordering on deceptive response"

Anyhow.... so what does happen when we start loading the bleeder up like this?

https://theaviationist.com/wp-conten...s-Carriage.jpg

Drag goes up, stealth goes down. Need to AAR becomes more frequent.

By the way, what are your credentials? Operator, support arms, journalist or armchair theorist? Genuinely interested.

My own are currently serving military, pilot, a number of front line types and F-35 Program experience.

Care to share?