Refuelling the F-35 ,when on the QE ?

[Rodders]

I was just wondering what would be used for AAR ,when the F-35 is embarked on the QE or POW? I saw a video of a USMC AV-8B refuelling a F-35 ,so is there a possibility of the RN & RAF using the Harrier for the same job?Just wondering.

Cheers Phil

[JAWS]

I was just wondering what would be used for AAR ,when the F-35 is embarked on the QE or POW? I saw a video of a USMC AV-8B refuelling a F-35 ,so is there a possibility of the RN & RAF using the Harrier for the same job?Just wondering.

Cheers Phil

No , we don't have any Harriers anymore .

[Thunder]

Probably the same a/c that we used when we flew Sea Harriers and Harriers of the last generation of carriers, none. Looking to the future I don’t know if it’s planned to intergrate a buddy system for the F35, would be surprised if it isn’t for somewhere down the line.

[Agent K]

As STEVIEJAWS says, we don't have Harriers any more, simply.

I guess the feeling is that for most operations and as part of a task force, local or strategic UK and allied assets would be available in theater for this role. However, something from left field (Falklands type) would mean no assets so range and ship positioning would have to be thought out.

[Snoop 95]

Also, being VTOL it can make emergency landings on anything flat, as Fl Lt Watson did in his Sea Harrier in 1983. See attached Wiki!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraigo_incident

[Richard E]

Also, being VTOL it can make emergency landings on anything flat, as Fl Lt Watson did in his Sea Harrier in 1983. See attached Wiki!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraigo_incident

Although any hapless F-35B pilot making a similar unplanned landing would have to set down on something suitably heat resistant...

[Dave934]

We could always buy some Harriers from the US to do the refueling .....
Dave.

[Freeman Lowell]

MV-22 VARS would extend the range of a F-35B sufficiently to enable the QE to stand-off out of range of most shore based anti-shipping missiles... (That is if the early F-35Bs don't runout of airframe hours before they put to sea.)
Freeman

[C24]

We could always buy some Harriers from the US to do the refueling .....
Dave.

In a similar vein, if we give the Tornado airframes and spares to the Germans, would they then lend us fully working ones later if we needed them?
Remember the £10 ticket deal for Australian immigration? Implement something similar for UK pensioners to colonise the Falkland Islands.
Anyone who thinks that either of these are daft, in a word, Brexit!

[Arthur Tee]

Think some folks on here are missing the basics...

Air Tanker do not operate Harriers - and are extremely unlikely to do so - as we are firmly locked-in to a crap contract!

The same reasons apply to the A400M and the reason we can’t refuel our SF Chinooks and Merlins...

As usual we’ll be expected to fight our battles with one hand tied behind our backs - or cling to the apron strings of Uncle Sam.

Arthur

[Freeman Lowell]

Arthur,
You might have read the Air Tanker contract. I have to confess I haven't. Do you know if it definitely excludes alternative tanker arrangement for seaborne forces? It would seem a daft decision to have signed up to were it the case.

Freeman

[Agent K]

Having written and managed a good number of multi-£M contracts in my aviation career I'd sincerely hope that the MoD lhaven't locked themselves in as much as that and without any clauses that allow contract change based on real expereince and/or needs at that time.

If they did then their procurement people should be exited from the organisation quickly.

[Andy_99]

Having written and managed a good number of multi-£M contracts in my aviation career I'd sincerely hope that the MoD lhaven't locked themselves in as much as that and without any clauses that allow contract change based on real expereince and/or needs at that time.

If they did then their procurement people should be exited from the organisation quickly.

We are talking the same MOD here, those responsible for the silly PFI contracts will have long gone with a massive golden handshake to reward them for their foobars

[Agent K]

Having written and managed a good number of multi-£M contracts in my aviation career I'd sincerely hope that the MoD lhaven't locked themselves in as much as that and without any clauses that allow contract change based on real expereince and/or needs at that time.

If they did then their procurement people should be exited from the organisation quickly.

We are talking the same MOD here, those responsible for the silly PFI contracts will have long gone with a massive golden handshake to reward them for their foobars

It was said slightly tongue in cheek and somewhat in dispair of perceived poor procurement processes........

[Richard B]

The US Navy is in a similar situation, they are using a lot of there F18's onboard as Tankers to support F18 missions. It's not an ideal situation to have 60 F18s on board and only have less then half combat ready the other half used as Tankers.
Been some mishaps with regards too the F18s trying to Tanker for the new F35C, the drouge system
Likes to be eaten by the F35c.

[Drinkmat]

Also, being VTOL it can make emergency landings on anything flat, as Fl Lt Watson did in his Sea Harrier in 1983. See attached Wiki!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraigo_incident

Although any hapless F-35B pilot making a similar unplanned landing would have to set down on something suitably heat resistant...

Different service - Watson was a Royal Navy Sub Lieutenant rather than an RAF Flight Lieutenant at the time of his escapade on the container ship.

The Harrier concerned is on display at the excellent Newark Air Museum.

[Supra]

Interested in your version of the "FUBAR" acronym? What do all those letters mean? Maybe your foobar is just FUBAR? ( Ducked Up Beyond All Reality )

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Arthur,
You might have read the Air Tanker contract. I have to confess I haven't. Do you know if it definitely excludes alternative tanker arrangement for seaborne forces? It would seem a daft decision to have signed up to were it the case.

Freeman

It's been fairly common knowledge (ie open source) for over a decade that Air Tanker have an exclusivity clause for MoD provision of AAR. It may seem silly to some, but in reality the only tanking capability in use around the time of its conception was that of the VC10 and TriStar - the Herc had stopped some time before (and had only really been used in the Falklands, which of course has had a dedicated jet tanker/transport for many years now). Some say we may have lost the ability to do RW refuelling by not being able to use either C-130 or A400M, but in reality, it's never been a capability we've had, or one we'd want to sustain, given the cost, training burden (AAR is a huge training burden - more cost) etc. We probably skin the/any SF cat another way ...

As for tanking off the carrier; if it's needed the Voyager (or A N Other coalition tanker can do it). The carriers take the fighters close in because they have a limited range. Modern tankers (well, the Voyager/KC-30 family) have ample range to be deployed well behind and in a far safer environment with bags of gas to give away with little risk to the capability. Take Afghanistan - many of the tankers were operating from bases 2-3 hours away in the Gulf.

So, on face (Daily Mail) value, a ridiculous decision, but when you get down into the detail of the job, not that ridiculous at all given the capabilities required.

[Agent K]

Spot on ColintheCaterpillar, from what some armchair warriors and DM readers perceive to be an outrage, the practicalities of cost, understanding the requirement and all you say means it's perhaps not quite so crazy than might appear.

[Viper28]

As for tanking off the carrier; if it's needed the Voyager (or A N Other coalition tanker can do it). The carriers take the fighters close in because they have a limited range. Modern tankers (well, the Voyager/KC-30 family) have ample range to be deployed well behind and in a far safer environment with bags of gas to give away with little risk to the capability. Take Afghanistan - many of the tankers were operating from bases 2-3 hours away in the gulf

If your going to do that, why not simply operate the F35's from the same safe bases and drag them behind the tanker? Cuts out the need for that expensive aircraft carrier

The point is without a carrier based ARA carrier operations will be compromised by the need to protect the carrier from counter attack. Situation would be better if the F35 Joint Project Office had not descoped drop tanks from the current development list.