Please, please!

But it’s vapourised. You’re not Leftpondian!

Eep sorry, it’s my damn browser spell checker, it doesn’t appear to have an English setting.

@haerdalis: Are the bays plumbed for fuel tanks? And have the created a stealthy pod yet?

One question that keeps bugging me, why are the USMC and UK F35Bs different in their performance characteristics? They are supposed to be the same plane. I understand why their performance targets may be different, but not the actual performance characteristics as indicated in those tables.

Logistics footprint for example, why does the UK seem to have a heavier footprint for maintaining the same aircraft?

And i’m definitely going to try and see QE when she’s launched. On a similar topic, Merlin AEW should have been unveiled today shouldn’t it? Anyone have any pics yet? (I still don’t know why I didn’t drive down to the Air Day, it’s only 30 miles from me :S. But on the up side they do training flights past my house so I may get to see it in flight soonish).

You need a tanker able to fly slow enough for helicopters to keep up. That means no jets. As well as the KC-130, the Transall can also do it, & the A400M will be able to.

So until the A400’s come in my statement stands, the UK can’t refuel helos. And then as has been pointed out the PFI will need to be shot twice in the head and then vaporised.

Doesn’t the RN has some capability to refuel aircraft using helicopters?

Using a helicopter to refuel other aircraft or getting a helo refuelled?

Either way, no. You need KC130s to refuel helos, other tankers can’t, the UK doesn’t have any. And i’ve never heard of a UK helo able to refuel others.

If you would care to refer to the first reply of this thread, I was the one who used the phrase saying they were only “nice to have” and went on to say that we were unlikely to purchase them now. They will have some uses, but not enough that we can afford to spend money on them now.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. Yes, we’re basically saying the same thing, but when I say that Mantis does not need to be piloted, I’m saying it does not need someone who is qualified to fly an aeroplane. The USAF uses pilots – officers who have flown aircraft – to operate Reapers. The British army thinks NCO specialists, who’ve never sat in a cockpit, can operate UAVs. Mantis is designed to be operated by the same sort of operators, although it’s being offered to meet an RAF requirement.

AFAIK the Herti demonstration in Afghanistan showed it could be operated in British army style, although supported by the RAF. It’s interesting that the unit publicly (on its website) stated to have supported the Herti demonstration is an RAF reserve photographic interpretation unit, 7010 squadron, which fits your speculation.

Also impoirtant to note that this is also how the US Army operates their UAVs. Interestingly they had fewer landing accidents than the US Air Force because they allowed it to be automated rather than having a pilot do it, which led to the USAF changing their procedures to allow more automity.

Back to the main CVF focus… i saw on today’s press that speculation continues on pooling carriers with the french. Can someone tell the reporters that the french couldn’t fly their Rafales from the QE’s decks just as the F35B wouldn’t be able to operate from the CdG…?
Because to “share” carriers as they say, the point comes always down to catapults. If capatapults aren’t fitted to the ships, there’s no possible sharing to be made.

Anyway, i read the statements of the First Sea Lord at RUSI, and he made an excellent point reminding another interesting data, the fact that most capital towns in the world are within 150 miles away from the sea and that soon 65% of the world people will live in this coastal area as well. This fact alone widely justifies the aircraft carriers.
Liam Fox keeps talking about “forces” less focused on heavy and more on firepower… What the hell does he mean, it’s very unclear to me. But in my eyes, these statements all but justify the funding of the carriers. In particular, the famous “not wars of states, but wars of people”… with 65% of the world’s population living near the sea, carriers are the key.

Thus, i hope that the press is widely wrong when they constantly say the second CVF is at risk. It would have no sense at all to scrap it.
And it would make no savings. Not in the next few years. It would merely make the single QE as expensive as the new USS Gerard Ford without being as capable. It would be demented over any limit.

It won’t happen anyway, the press is just being its usual useless and ill-informed self. But FYI F35B could operate off CdG, nothing to stop it.

There is room in the A model for the probe as some partner nations requested it.

Only on the A?

That kind of makes this entire discussion pointless then if the B cant refuel via a probe and drogue system.