Falkland Islands Tension increase

[JFKvsNixon]

Has that been confirmed, are we now fitting electric catapults and arrestors to both carriers? That can only be a good thing if it's correct.

 

It was announced in the defence review around a year ago. I think that the STOVL version is doomed, and it'll be dropped soon.

 

As I mentioned earlier this will leave the US Marine Corps without any planes to fly of their carriers when their Harriers retire. So I think that their purchase of our Harriers for spare part was part of their plan to lengthen the life of their own Harriers to try to retain a fixed wing presence for as long as possible.

[Harleyman]

It was announced in the defence review around a year ago. I think that the STOVL version is doomed, and it'll be dropped soon.

 

As I mentioned earlier this will leave the US Marine Corps without any planes to fly of their carriers when their Harriers retire. So I think that their purchase of our Harriers for spare part was part of their plan to lengthen the life of their own Harriers to try to retain a fixed wing presence for as long as possible.

 

Not so methinks. The F-18 is also the current aircraft in use aboard carriers. It replaced the F-14 which was phased out about 4-5 years ago.

[Tony]

Why would any nation need a floating-just-about-to-be-sunk-at-any-minute runway when there is a big stripe of tarmac with a bar?

[Harleyman]

Why would any nation need a floating-just-about-to-be-sunk-at-any-minute runway when there is a big stripe of tarmac with a bar?

 

Why do you think carriers have AWACs aboard?

 

HMS Sheffield was sunk just for the very reason that there was no early warning system in place

[Rupert_Baehr]

I would imagine we have typhoons stationed at RAF Gibraltar and the Ascension Islands, both of which I would imagine have the capability of providing air to air refuelling for the typhoons, RAF Mount Pleasant, Falklands does have air to air refuelling aircraft. Flight time from Ascension Island to Falklands 2.5 hours, from Gibraltar, 5-6 hours and from UK 7-8 hours.

 

Obviousely if you are in the RAF you may know something I don't, why can't they get there in a day?

 

 

UK to the Falklands in 7-8 hours? - In your dreams!

Ascension to the Falklands in 2.5 hours? In what?

 

If you were flying from Brize Norton to Ascension, the flight would take about 9 hours. (From the RAF Website) If you had been flying from Marham to Ascension in a Victor it would have taken 9 hours too - and you would have refuelled from another tanker if you were going direct. - If not (or if you were in one of a pair of tankers and were doing the refuelling,) you would have stopped off at Dakar or Banjul to refuel.

 

It's about another 8 or 9 hours from Ascension to the Falklands. (Those flight times are at a cruising speed of about M0.84. A fighter could cruise faster, but if it does it will burn considerably more fuel.) I don't know what the economical cruise speed of a Eurofighter is, but I doubt it's much above M0.90 and anyway, it's going to have to slow down to refuel. If the fighters are going to travel significantly faster than the tankers, you will have to pre-position tankers (or launch them first.) It's easier (and safer) for the fighters to accompany the tankers.

 

Taking a trail of Eurofighters from the UK to the Falklands non-stop is a non-starter. Before we look at the refuelling side, consider some of the physiological problems:

 

Fighters don't have lavatories. OK, you can have a piddle pack, but if you need to poop, you'll have to live with it. That's the output side. Then there are the input problems:

 

You are going to need oxygen. How much (in hours) do you have on board?

 

You are going to need something to drink. In fact, if you are thinking about flying for 18 hours you are going to need a lot of drinks (you will dehydrate rapidly.) Where are you going to put all those drink cartons?

You are probably going to need some food, too. Where are you going to stow that?

 

Then there's the not-so-small matter of fatigue. Yes, there are pills, but the aircraft are still being flown by humans and those humans have limits. You probably arrived at work about 3 hours before take-off. You've got an 18 hour flight and if there is a problem at the destination (bad weather, or the runway goes black) the aircraft will probably have to refuel from a terminal tanker and then fly to an alternate. (Probably Punta Arenas, in Chile.) 21 hours after you arrived at work (and it's been a long and trying day) you are going to refuel from a terminal tanker and then fly on to a diversion airfield?

 

Air-to-Air Refuelling requires a lot of skill (and a bit of luck, too.) Things can (and do) go wrong and it's probably not a good idea to plan to do it when you're very tired.

 

AAR is not without risk. Risk for the tanker, the receiver and anybody who happens to be on the ground underneath them. (Which is why most countries tend not to allow AAR overland in their airspace.)

 

When you are deciding on where to refuel, you can't just divide the distance to be flown by a number which is a bit less than the range of the receiver.

 

The receivers must have enough fuel at all times (and particularly when they are about to refuel) to fly to an alternate in the event of a problem. You can't wait until they are nearly out if fuel and fill them up. Not only do you have to consider potential problems with the receivers, you also have to think about the tankers.

 

If a receiver spears the basket and breaks his probe (or snaps his probe off in the drogue) then that receiver is going to have to divert to an airfield and land. The tanker has - at the very least - lost the use of that particular refuelling point.

 

VC10's are '3 point' tankers. They have a pod on each wing and a Hoodoo on the centreline. They can refuel two fighters at once (using the pods) but if they lose the use of one pod, they are down to single-point. Refuelling all the aircraft in a trail will take at least twice as long and the planner must take that into account. The last aircraft to be refuelled must also still have enough fuel to divert before it makes contact with the tanker.

 

The Tristar has 2 HDUs, but can only refuel one receiver at a time. The refuelling brackets are going to be long.

 

If you were going to operate a trail of Eurofighters from the UK to Ascension, then the refuelling plan for the first part would not be too complex. The route from the UK would probably go down the Bay of Biscay and there would be no shortage of diversion airfields. Once you get South of Gibraltar, there aren't so many diversion airfields and the plan would probably try to keep the receivers as full as possible.

 

If you're planning on using VC10 tankers, then don't wait too long. No 101 Sqn will be disbanding in March 2013.

[Agent Orange]

UK to the Falklands in 7-8 hours? - In your dreams!

Ascension to the Falklands in 2.5 hours? In what?

 

If you were flying from Brize Norton to Ascension, the flight would take about 9 hours. (From the RAF Website) If you had been flying from Marham to Ascension in a Victor it would have taken 9 hours too - and you would have refuelled from another tanker if you were going direct. - If not (or if you were in one of a pair of tankers and were doing the refuelling,) you would have stopped off at Dakar or Banjul to refuel.

 

It's about another 8 or 9 hours from Ascension to the Falklands. (Those flight times are at a cruising speed of about M0.84. A fighter could cruise faster, but if it does it will burn considerably more fuel.) I don't know what the economical cruise speed of a Eurofighter is, but I doubt it's much above M0.90 and anyway, it's going to have to slow down to refuel. If the fighters are going to travel significantly faster than the tankers, you will have to pre-position tankers (or launch them first.) It's easier (and safer) for the fighters to accompany the tankers.

 

Taking a trail of Eurofighters from the UK to the Falklands non-stop is a non-starter. Before we look at the refuelling side, consider some of the physiological problems:

 

Fighters don't have lavatories. OK, you can have a piddle pack, but if you need to poop, you'll have to live with it. That's the output side. Then there are the input problems:

 

You are going to need oxygen. How much (in hours) do you have on board?

 

You are going to need something to drink. In fact, if you are thinking about flying for 18 hours you are going to need a lot of drinks (you will dehydrate rapidly.) Where are you going to put all those drink cartons?

You are probably going to need some food, too. Where are you going to stow that?

 

Then there's the not-so-small matter of fatigue. Yes, there are pills, but the aircraft are still being flown by humans and those humans have limits. You probably arrived at work about 3 hours before take-off. You've got an 18 hour flight and if there is a problem at the destination (bad weather, or the runway goes black) the aircraft will probably have to refuel from a terminal tanker and then fly to an alternate. (Probably Punta Arenas, in Chile.) 21 hours after you arrived at work (and it's been a long and trying day) you are going to refuel from a terminal tanker and then fly on to a diversion airfield?

 

Air-to-Air Refuelling requires a lot of skill (and a bit of luck, too.) Things can (and do) go wrong and it's probably not a good idea to plan to do it when you're very tired.

 

AAR is not without risk. Risk for the tanker, the receiver and anybody who happens to be on the ground underneath them. (Which is why most countries tend not to allow AAR overland in their airspace.)

 

When you are deciding on where to refuel, you can't just divide the distance to be flown by a number which is a bit less than the range of the receiver.

 

The receivers must have enough fuel at all times (and particularly when they are about to refuel) to fly to an alternate in the event of a problem. You can't wait until they are nearly out if fuel and fill them up. Not only do you have to consider potential problems with the receivers, you also have to think about the tankers.

 

If a receiver spears the basket and breaks his probe (or snaps his probe off in the drogue) then that receiver is going to have to divert to an airfield and land. The tanker has - at the very least - lost the use of that particular refuelling point.

 

VC10's are '3 point' tankers. They have a pod on each wing and a Hoodoo on the centreline. They can refuel two fighters at once (using the pods) but if they lose the use of one pod, they are down to single-point. Refuelling all the aircraft in a trail will take at least twice as long and the planner must take that into account. The last aircraft to be refuelled must also still have enough fuel to divert before it makes contact with the tanker.

 

The Tristar has 2 HDUs, but can only refuel one receiver at a time. The refuelling brackets are going to be long.

 

If you were going to operate a trail of Eurofighters from the UK to Ascension, then the refuelling plan for the first part would not be too complex. The route from the UK would probably go down the Bay of Biscay and there would be no shortage of diversion airfields. Once you get South of Gibraltar, there aren't so many diversion airfields and the plan would probably try to keep the receivers as full as possible.

 

If you're planning on using VC10 tankers, then don't wait too long. No 101 Sqn will be disbanding in March 2013.

 

It's ok, VC10's are obsolete and are being replaced by the Voyager... which is an airbus A330. More information below:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13125047

 

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/futurestrategictankeraircraft.cfm

 

Looks to me to be a handy piece of kit.

[MrSmith]

UK to the Falklands in 7-8 hours? - In your dreams!

Ascension to the Falklands in 2.5 hours? In what?

 

 

I was giving the best time possible at around 80% top speed and allowing for in-flight refuelling but it has already been pointed out to me and accepted by me that those time wouldn’t be possible.

[Cyclone]

Why would any nation need a floating-just-about-to-be-sunk-at-any-minute runway when there is a big stripe of tarmac with a bar?

 

Because big strips of tarmac are notoriously difficult to move around.

And when they're 8000 miles from the main bulk of your forces quite difficult to keep hold of.

[MrMoran]

Because big strips of tarmac are notoriously difficult to move around.

And when they're 8000 miles from the main bulk of your forces quite difficult to keep hold of.

 

Yeah but the strip of tarmac has a bar!!!!!!

[Conrod]

Not so methinks. The F-18 is also the current aircraft in use aboard carriers. It replaced the F-14 which was phased out about 4-5 years ago.

I'm guessing JFK isn't talking about the big carriers here. F-18s can't use the smaller ships that the US Marine Corps operate harriers and rotary assets from.