Absolutely nothing... as long as you are happy for the carrier to remain within 300 miles of land.
In an A2AD environment, we will be hugely constrained - hence my earlier comment on HNS.

Why? INVINCIBLE certainly didn't remain within 300 miles of land when she established her record 166 continuous days at sea without a port call. Besides, have you ever heard of 'lily-padding'?

Why? That's what the AD destroyers and F-35Bs in the AD role are for, especially when combined with Crowsnest.

Moving large items such as jet engines and missiles would be easier with an Osprey.

Plus I don't think we're buying any extra Chinooks for carrier support so it would. mean a loss of
cability elsewhere

Yup, but invincible wasn’t operating a reverse supply chain that supports F-35s....

And lily padding a Chinook over 1000nm takes some doing (assuming you carry internal payload instead of Bob tanks).

Spare jet engines and missiles (in the unlikely event of the carrier running out) will probably be as close as the nearest RFA.

You both seem convinced that spending a fortune we don't have on V-22 Ospreys is a more sensible option than using Chinooks we already have.

Somehow, I don't think this discussion is worth continuing. :)

Well those of us who aren't fans of the QE's will say it's yet another diversion of resources, such as the SSN's & T45's, which are already over committed elsewhere on critical tasks.

The question comes down to does the new capabilities of a QE makeup for the loss of the diverted assets?

I think you are missing my point.... without the enablers for a true strategic capability, we are left with a very expensive littoral platform.
It may be unpalatable given where we are with the QE class procurement, but the rhetoric surrounding the QE’s arrival is overplaying the capability somewhat.

The US navy obviously don’t feel that the (cheaper) alternative to providing a strategic carrier capability is to load up support vessels with spares - the just in time reverse supply chain doesn’t support this.

To simply say the debate ‘is not worth continuing’ reminds me of the Blackadder quote
‘'If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through”.

With that type of attitude, it is hardly surprising the EP is as overheated as it is. Again.

I'm not the one advocating spending a fortune we don't have on V-22 Ospreys. :)

Maybe someone should have thought about COD before ordering the QE

Or they did and in time honoured fashion decided

1. We can make the case once they're in service or

2. Who cares what the Army & the RAF use the Chinooks for, WE are the Senior Service or

3. Something will turn up or

4. What is COD?

I suspect a mix of 3 & 4 TBH

Agree, however procurement was decided before Levene’s reforms were introduced, so it doesn’t matter now....

Loving your enthusiasm for jointery.

If I were to agree that we should spend a fortune we don't have on V-22 Ospreys we might like but can do without, would it lighten the burden of that anti-carrier chip on your shoulder? ;)

We have 60 Chinnoks.

FODPlod, Buying things ‘we might like’, rather than determining a capability requirement and prioritising its affordability, is what got us to where we are.

I’m all for the carrier(s)- what yanks my chain is the complete failure to identify and cost the Capability. All of the DLODs are required to be in place before the operating Capability can be declared - so what do you suggest?

1 claim a global carrier enabled power projection capability that is nothing of the sort, and hope nobody notices.

2 acknowledge defence’s failings in procuring the capability and declare the actual limited operating capability.

3 address the capability shortfalls and fix them- (not limited to COD by the way).

For those who keep questioning the lack of UK COD aircraft to carry large things like spare JSF aircraft engines, of course the Navy would like them, but we are where we are at the moment.

However, as mentioned by others, in the past when the Navy has not had such large COD aircraft to carry spare engines the Navy/MoD has always found ways to overcome that situation. Contingencies that allow for that have previously been put in place many times and if need be then surely, they could be implemented again!

For example, the MoD could adjust the required number of spares aircraft engines to be kept onboard a Carrier depending on the known reliability of such engines, the number of aircraft on the ship, the operational threat expected at that time, the maximum distance that the ship is likely to be from safe locations where spare engines could be obtained from, etc.
Note: Larger carriers have more space available to carry any additional engines, if required.

As others have also previously stated, RFA Supply ships can also carry whatever number of spare engines is required if there is a likely need for them.

When Carrier operational tasking is extremely urgent and ‘if’ spare engines are not available within the Naval task force, then replacement JSF aircraft could also possibly be flown out to the Carrier using Air to Air refuelling (if required) to get them there?

Why would the carrier always be expected to go close to shore to pick up any spare aircraft engines when another smaller ship could be sent to do that and then take the engine out to carrier’s location?

If the carrier was involved in a major war and was supporting NATO then there would also probably be a USA Carrier/Supplier ship in the same area and they may be able to offer the use/loan of a spare engine or provide a COD aircraft to collect the spare engine for our Carrier. Then its Osprey (or a helicopter) could transfer the engine to our carrier. (Maybe EH101 Merlins could also carry JSF Engines in transportation containers as underslung loads?)

If there is a need to extend the range of the Chinooks/Merlins then other ships could be positioned between the Carrier and the location where the Engine needs to be collected from (to allow extra refuel capability on route).
Note: If need be, some chinooks could also be upgraded to have air to air refuelling as mentioned below:
UK Looks At Helicopter In-flight Refueling

Finally, if we have not ordered enough spare JSF engines then it may be more cost effective to order a few more of those engines than to buy and set up a complete new squadron just for a few very expensive Ospreys. (Even if only as a short-term measure until we could hopefully one day afford to buy our own Navy Osprey aircraft.)

This is getting good now.

Order some more bibs and bobs few x10 million here and there jic.

Then when you go to use them
1. They have fallen out of configuration control
2. They have corroded beyond use
3. They aren't there in the first place
4. They have been subjected to canabilisation (See 2 above having environmental sct's breached).

And all that was "onboard" at Goia de Coll.

Amateurs clutching at straws.

ROFL.

A succinct assessment of the facts.
I'd not be too surprised to see HMG selling these two white elephants to India once that country gets worried about Chinese encroachment into the 'Indian' Ocean...

To High Spirits point
Stick 3 Bob tanks (another 7200kg of fuel) in a Mk5 Chinook and you have, indeed, overcome the range issue.

Just what payload are you going to be putting in that a/c? Not an F135 Power Module- internal or external, that’s for sure.

Just because “in the past” we haven’t needed COD aircraft, doesn’t mean that the way we will operate a 21st Century carrier means we don’t need one now. There is a huge amount of learning taking place at the moment in the way we WILL operate the QE and F-35 and it is completely at odds with a lot of current experience.


Also we can’t simply simply load ourselves up with additional F-35 DSPs. Unfortunately the F-35 supply chain has not be designed that way.

I’d also suggest that the USN MV-22s are not being procured with enough spare a/c to service allies who may find themselves needing to use their capability in a time of need. To resort to that as a ‘plan’ is shameful, in my opinion.

Heathrow Harry, and all you other CVF naysayers.

The RN has operated Aircraft Carriers of one sort or another since the dawn of carrier aviation, and has never had a COD capability that went beyond the cramped baggage storage of a converted Fairey Gannet.

Why is it such a debilitating problem now?

Because that was 50 years ago - the USN are on record as saying they have serious issues with transshipping anti-air and surface to surface missiles from ship to ship at sea

"I'd not be too surprised to see HMG selling these two white elephants to India once that country gets worried about Chinese encroachment into the 'Indian' Ocean"

One to India and one to Brazil I suspect - the Brazilians have just retired their only carrier