Today Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Fin Mil Cap), Air Marshal Knighton told the Public Accts Committee there isn't a requirement for AAR from the QEC, a reply dismissed with a condescending 'oh dear' by Navy fan site @NavyLookout. Fair? Let's talk about carrier AAR [Thread]

The USN has signed contracts for 7 MQ-25 Stingrays at a cost of $890M. This UAS began life as an ISR platform before being switched to AAR. It aims (still in development) to have a 'give' of 15,000lbs of fuel at a range of 500nm and replace buddy-buddy F/A-18s.

Is this a realistic option for the UK? Well the MQ-25 needs cats & traps so probably not. In addition to the fitting of a UAS control stations (currently happening to USS Carl Vinson & George H.W. Bush) the QEC would need launch & recovery gear to be fitted.

What do the French do? The Rafale M uses buddy buddy AAR. It can offload 11,750lbs at 100nm. This doesn't significantly extend strike range but it's more about keeping aircraft in the air while the deck is cleared after a mishap (not an issue for the STOVL F-35B).

Is it worth pursuing buddy-buddy for F-35B? No. Besides the significant development costs, the increase in range would be small and would remove precious aircraft from strike or CAP missions. It's not required for emergency AAR because STOVL.

Probably the only viable plan would be to join the USMC V-22 Aerial Refuelling System (VARS). This is a roll-on/roll-off Hose Drum Unit for MV-22 with a 'give' of 10,000lbs to help USMC F-35B's island-hop the Pacific.

With a vertical lift capability it would be capable of operating from a QEC. However, there would be a significant trade-off in terms of hangar/deck space (not to mention cost!)

Not an issue for the USMC/USN with lots of decks and island bases as part of the Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations concept. Bigger issue for CEPP though. Is it worth it for 10K of gas?

https://www.candp.marines.mil/Concepts/Subordinate-Operating-Concepts/Expeditionary-Advanced-Base-Operations/

So what about the UK plan of using land-based AAR? Is it really that terrible? The good news is that modern aircraft are capable of huge ranges and so are their military tanker variants.

Remember that MQ-25 aspiration of 15K lbs at 500nm? A Voyager can give 120K lbs at 1000nm. Its max range is 8000nm. It might also act as a combat cloud hub - remember the F-35 is all about data.

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/exclusive-video-royal-air-force-lays-out-roadmap-to-its-combat-cloud-future/

In reality, any F-35 mission is also likely to involve a mix of land-based & carrier, UK & allied Combat Air, ISR & CSAR assets. If we were doing a standalone, F-35 only, UK sovereign strike we would want a sovereign combat personnel recovery capability.

And that brings us to the thing really limiting carrier stand-off range: Merlin Mk4. If we're going to invest in AAR, let's put the money here, probably by buying into the A400M RW AAR capability.

And before someone says it, no Voyager PFI exclusivity would not preclude this: that doesn't apply to RW (although ironically the same companies Airbus & Cobham) would be delivering the capability. And if anyone can make it happen, it's Air Marshal Rich Knighton.