Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Last edited by Conan on Nov 12, 2011 - 09:37 AM; edited 2 times in total

I'm only not enamoured of the half-arsed ideas to get them into service, that get thrown around as if they are the only thing we're missing to give us 'real' amphibious or opposed entry capability.

Just putting 6 onto an LHD isn't going to achieve much. It's not going to boost our amphibious capability, on the contrary it's going to massively impact it. If it is done properly fine no dramas, but all I'm seeing now is proposals thrown up with little thought put into what we want these for, what benefit they are going to provide, what we are going to do with it, how it's going to be resourced above what we already have or why it's worth reducing the planned capability we already are approved to obtain.

When there's something more than, 'well we have a flight deck so why shouldn't we?' Perhaps...

F-16.net Sponsor

Conan, I'll agree. There is more to it than 'half-arsed' ideas for sure. And it is above my pay grade and/or contacts to get access to information to go further than what data/ideas are available to the public. I keep in mind (for example) that long ago the RAN FAA was going to be only an 'ASW only' helo force - foegoing the fixed wing assets of the mid-1960s. A fright put fixed wing back aboard HMAS Melbourne as we know. Early on there were only FOUR out of an available EIGHT (two TA4Gs could not operate aboard) onboard HMAS Melbourne as the proverbial 'poor mans fighter/fleet defender' for an otherwise heavy ASW component of Wessex 31B ASW helos (upgraded from A) and S-2E (original) ASW Trackers. The RAN specialised in ASW warfare. That role changed slightly as more A4G [8 for 8+8 total] became available by early 1972 then onboard to six-eight as a test cruise late in 1972 I think. This suggests that with the amphibious component as the mainstay of the force (you must agree a big role change for the Navy & Army) there might be room for the 'poor man fighter' of today temporarily which also has a bunch of other qualities that the USMC like to stress to anyone who will listen. Smile

Perhaps things will unfold slowly for sure. And the proper planning needs to be done. And I have no problem with the small F-35B component not being a regular part of any amphibious task force or aboard an LHD permanently - but only as needed. I think flexibility of our forces would be a good thing and that flexibility can be made available.

Yes the 100 F-35As for Oz are in the pipeline with the last tranche of 24? not absolute AFAIK. Why not later add Bs instead of As to that last tranche of a total of 24 - much the same way we will have some Growlers amongst our Super Hornets. We have years to decide and by then the LHDs will be offshore and with USMC help will be showing what can be done.
__________________

As a side note. Why I'm not certain about the events during the first embarkation of a larger force of A4Gs late in 1972 (because I was elsewhere at the time) I do know that at first 6 [of 8 total in VF-805] were aboard and then the two left behind transited via Uluru to Darwin to embark to make up 8 (don't know if any Wessii or Twackers disembarked) whilst HMAS Melbourne transited back home from exercises in SEA.

spazsinbad wrote:

Conan, I'll agree. There is more to it than 'half-arsed' ideas for sure. And it is above my pay grade and/or contacts to get access to information to go further than what data/ideas are available to the public. I keep in mind (for example) that long ago the RAN FAA was going to be only an 'ASW only' helo force - foegoing the fixed wing assets of the mid-1960s. A fright put fixed wing back aboard HMAS Melbourne as we know. Early on there were only FOUR out of an available EIGHT (two TA4Gs could not operate aboard) onboard HMAS Melbourne as the proverbial 'poor mans fighter/fleet defender' for an otherwise heavy ASW component of Wessex 31B ASW helos (upgraded from A) and S-2E (original) ASW Trackers. The RAN specialised in ASW warfare. That role changed slightly as more A4G [8 for 8+8 total] became available by early 1972 then onboard to six-eight as a test cruise late in 1972 I think. This suggests that with the amphibious component as the mainstay of the force (you must agree a big role change for the Navy & Army) there might be room for the 'poor man fighter' of today temporarily which also has a bunch of other qualities that the USMC like to stress to anyone who will listen. Smile

They are only going to fit at the expense of something else. That is my (and RAN's for that matter) point all the way through (besides lack of current intent and lack of resources). RAN however at least acknowledges that the LHD's aren't going to operate a proper fixed wing air group without a 3rd vessel acquired. RAN also wants a 4th AWD and so on. The difference between wants and resources however it is what has held back the official wishlist...

It is only planned to operate 4x Tiger aircraft on-board an LHD. Are you going to replace them? That might allow 2-3 JSF's when you talk about the relative footprint of each asset and the JP-4 storage requirements and so on.

The Armada might be planning on operating half a dozen or so -B's on their Juan Carlos 1 when the Principe De Asturia is unavailable, but it won't be operating the helo or vehicle numbers Australia wants to carry when it's doing so...

Quote:

Perhaps things will unfold slowly for sure. And the proper planning needs to be done. And I have no problem with the small F-35B component not being a regular part of any amphibious task force or aboard an LHD permanently - but only as needed. I think flexibility of our forces would be a good thing and that flexibility can be made available.

I'm not ant-F-35b for the RAN but I would only agree to such an idea if RAN's entire plan were to be followed through, not the popular idea of adding a bunch of -B models to what we already have.

Sure the Melbourne got away with carrying 8 or more fixed wing aircraft on a much smaller ship, but it didn't have to carry an entire infantry battalion group, 150 vehicles and up to 24 helos, 4x LCM-1E's and and sustain them entirely by itself for weeks...

Quote:

Yes the 100 F-35As for Oz are in the pipeline with the last tranche of 24? not absolute AFAIK. Why not later add Bs instead of As to that last tranche of a total of 24 - much the same way we will have some Growlers amongst our Super Hornets. We have years to decide and by then the LHDs will be offshore and with USMC help will be showing what can be done.
__________________

Will?

The Phase 2C requirement for up to 28 aircraft isn't set in stone in terms of being "locked in to a contract" but that doesn't mean other fixed wing tactical aircraft have ever been considered or planned for either. I think it far more likely (especially under our current government) that Phase 2C will simply be incorporated into BACC and the Super Hornet / Growler capability will take on the long term role, then Government suddenly reversing 30+ years of policy and 10+ years of strategic planning and suddenly deciding to acquire a far more complicated asset that we have no CONOPS or doctrine relating to it. The reason why is budgetary considerations. If the strategic plan we currently have is thrown out the window in a hurry it'll be for the sole purpose of saving cash. Increasing capability won't be the reason...

We've had amphibious warfare capability for decades and a doctrine of supporting it via CTOL fixed wing tactical aircraft. Suddenly doing an about turn on this aspect is going to take far more than mere possession of ships that have a 200m long flight deck and a ski-jump...

Will? "Warning 'Will' Robinson?" Very Happy

(Lost In Space is remembered, at least, from oft-repeated lines of the Robot, such as "Warning! Warning!", "That does not compute" and "Danger, Will Robinson!".)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_Space

The new amphibious capability is quite different in scale and yes with a big flat long deck mit ski jump. I'm happy to wait to see the visiting USMC F-35Bs cross-decking (showing off) on the RAN LHDs. They will want to check out the ski jump also. And before that the F-35Bs at PaxRiver will be 'jumping for joy' on the ski jump in centrefield if I'm not mistaken. Now that will be a great video as well. Very Happy

____________

I'm guessing the new 'Patrol Boat/Sea Patrol' series will be set aboard the whizbang gizmos of an LHD. We know most of the last Sea Patrol TV series was shot in a recreated studio bridge setting. The RAN has virtual LHD training geewhizery so it will be a HOOT! Rolling Eyes

_____________________

The new F-35B9 (benign) "General Utility Non-theorizing Environmental Control Robot, Model B9"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Fame_5.JPG

The DAVE B: [TRANSFORMER Edition]
http://www.mcgraw-hillhomelandsecurity. ... tOgden.pdf (5.5Mb)
OR here:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-105.html
Download:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-15022.html

They champion building up to 60 America-class amphibious shiips, F-35Bs and UCLASS as the future direction for the Navy.

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... us-carrier

Twilight of the $UPERfluous Carrier
Issue: Proceedings Magazine - May 2011 Vol. 137/5/1,299

By Captain Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy, and Lieutenant Colonel J. Noel Williams, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired)

With smaller and lighter unmanned aircraft coming into the mix, the United States can also deploy smaller and lighter—and less expensive—ships to carry them.

.. Given very clear technology trends toward precision long-range strike and increasingly sophisticated anti-access and area-denial capabilities, high-signature, limited-range combatants like the current aircraft carrier will not meet the requirements of tomorrow’s Fleet. In short, the march of technology is bringing the supercarrier era to an end, just as the new long-range strike capabilities of carrier aviation brought on the demise of the battleship era in the 1940s.
..

If the CVN becomes useless, I fail to see how LHAs will be less-so. That said, one can hypothesize a few scenarios in which the America-class would be better suited and less risky than a Nimitz. The USN is "planning" on 12 LHA-6s; if they make it to those kind of numbers, I can see dropping 2-3 carriers from the fleet. Of course, that would require an act of Congress because I believe 11 supercarriers are required by law at this time.

popcorn there are discussions here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ngs#200431
&
mentioned here (Axe): http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ngs#200431

Call for more Amphibs. Over to youse America. Complete POST at URL is best to read rather than truncated excerpts here.

The Makin Island Deployment - Another Reminder the US Needs More Amphibs 16 Nov 2011

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... other.html

"... the real amphibious ready group story is the unfolding record breaking deployment of the Bataan ARG. If you recall, as a response to unfolding events in Libya, the Bataan ARG deployed a few weeks early on March 23, 2011 - 207 days ago (nearly 8 months ago). Lets just say she isn't coming home for Christmas, and if she isn't home by Valentines Day (a legitimate possibility) - the ships will break all records for deployment length since World War II....

...For the record, Bataan ARG represents a visible data point regarding the need for more amphibious ships. When amphibious ship deployments start breaking modern deployment length records - which WILL happen with Bataan - that means the Navy has not built enough amphibious ships.... At what point will Congress get the message that without more amphibious ships - which consistently has by percentage the highest number of days at sea annually of any surface vessel type - the nations leaders are asking way too much of the smaller, always desired but usually-overlooked-by-big-Navy amphibious force. 10 months is a long time for a battalion of Marines at sea, but because they are Marines - no one will ever hear a single complaint about it....

...The maintenance bill at the end of these very long ARG deployments isn't going to be small. Remember, Kearsarge ARG was at sea for 8+ months and now Bataan ARG will be at sea for 10+ months...."

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 52-492.jpg

"Description: The amphibious dock landing ship USS Pearl Harbor [LSD 52], front [foreground is a better word in this instance], the amphibious assault ship Makin Island USS Makin Island [LHD 8] and the amphibious transport dock ship USS New Orleans [LPD 18] transit off the coast of southern California."

H/T to 'solomon' for making this PDF available.
Although specifically about Navantia product including the Juan Carlos I for Spanish Navy LHD there is excellent detail in this 14Mb PDF for anyone interested. No aspersions cast in this 'example text' from said PDF:

Free Download of this 14Mb Navantia LHD PDF here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73228597/JCI-en-v2

"...In January 2011 it was announced that the Spanish Navy had contracted the Italian company Calzoni [Secret Pizza] S.R.L to build and install an Electro Optical Deck Approaching System on the Juan Carlos I. The complete system should be installed before 15 December 2011. It is already in operation on the Italian aircraft carrier, Cavour, and is compatible with the latest generation of night vision goggles. The EODAS is an electro-optical system planned to facilitate approach and landing of V/STOL aircraft on the flight deck in both day and night operations. It is made up of two main subsystems: Deck Approach Project Sight (DAPS) or flightpath indicator and the Head-Up Display (HUD) or aircraft position indicator. The HUD will allow the LSO -the officer in charge of landing safety- to observe the approach of fixed-wing aircraft from the primary flight display, having the appropriate resources that enable him to know the position of the aircraft in relation to the flight path and be able to abort or approve the landing approach...."

There is info about NITKA further back on this thread so here is some news about it [http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=199978&highlight=nitka#199978]

Navy pilots to go to Russia for carrier-based trainingPTI | Nov 24,2011

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/n ... 13693.html

"New Delhi, Nov 24 (PTI) Ahead of proposed induction of Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier by end of next year, the Navy will be sending a team of 10 pilots to Russia for training in operations of MiG-29K fighter planes from the warship. India had signed a deal with Russia in 2004 for purchasing the carrier along with 16 MiG 29Ks. As per the understanding between the two countries, a team of 10 pilots will be in Russia around three months before the scheduled induction of battleship in December next year, Navy officials told PTI here.

Russia has given the assurance to train Indian pilots for arrested carrier landings and deck take-offs, they said. The training is likely to be done at the NITKA facility in Ukraine, which was built during the erstwhile Soviet era for training pilots for ship-borne operations. In India, such training will take place later at the naval air base, Hansa, in Goa. Naval pilots are already flying the MiG 29Ks, several which have already been commissioned at its base in Goa. The aircraft are carrying out shore-based operations and will continue to do so till the arrival of the carrier.

India has also signed a contract with Russia for providing another 29 MiG 29K planes for its future requirements. All these aircraft would be deployed on the Russian-made warship."

NITKA is a Russian acronym and not a place name.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dXm6 ... ig_29k.jpg

spazsinbad wrote:

H/T to 'solomon' for making this PDF available.
Although specifically about Navantia product including the Juan Carlos I for Spanish Navy LHD there is excellent detail in this 14Mb PDF for anyone interested. No aspersions cast in this 'example text' from said PDF:

Free Download of this 14Mb Navantia LHD PDF here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73228597/JCI-en-v2

"...In January 2011 it was announced that the Spanish Navy had contracted the Italian company Calzoni [Secret Pizza] S.R.L to build and install an Electro Optical Deck Approaching System on the Juan Carlos I. The complete system should be installed before 15 December 2011. It is already in operation on the Italian aircraft carrier, Cavour, and is compatible with the latest generation of night vision goggles. The EODAS is an electro-optical system planned to facilitate approach and landing of V/STOL aircraft on the flight deck in both day and night operations. It is made up of two main subsystems: Deck Approach Project Sight (DAPS) or flightpath indicator and the Head-Up Display (HUD) or aircraft position indicator. The HUD will allow the LSO -the officer in charge of landing safety- to observe the approach of fixed-wing aircraft from the primary flight display, having the appropriate resources that enable him to know the position of the aircraft in relation to the flight path and be able to abort or approve the landing approach...."

Hi all, long time lurker on the forum, first post here Smile

I find it interesting to note that even Navantia have made the mistake, as is commonly done, and quoted the Wasp Class hospital as having 587 beds. You would think they would get it right as it is an information document (and you would expect slightly biased towards them) on their achievements ?
Not a bad read though, good info on the JC1/Canberra (I am an Aussie) but also good info on the Galicia Class (which is what the Largs/Choules is based on) albeit on a smaller scale than the Choules. It really gives you a good idea of the capacity the RAN and ADF as a whole are going to have at their disposal

Cheers

aussienscale wrote:

Hi all, long time lurker on the forum, first post here

Welcome!

I was curious about the medical facilities aboard ship and found this info for the LHA and LHD.

http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/ ... LHALHD.htm

In addition to the organic medical assets of the LHD/LHA, Fleet Surgical Teams
are often deployed, enhancing the ship's medical capabilities.
LHD Organic Medical Assets
LHD MEDICAL F ACILITIES
6 Operating Rooms
17 ICU Beds
47 Ward Beds
60 Overflow beds
Ancillary:
Lab.. ... ... ... . yes
X-ray. ... ... .. yes
Blood Bank yes
LHD M EDICAL MANNING
2 Medical Corps
1 Dental Corps
0 Nurse Corps
0 Anesthesia Provider
1 Med. Service Corps
18 Hospital Corpsmen
4 Dental Technicians
0 Dental Operations
The LHA can transport approximately 1,900 troops along with the helicopters,
boats, and amphibious vehicles required for landing them. LHAs are capable of
receiving casualties from helicopter and waterborne craft and are designed to
function as primary CRTSs in amphibious operations.
Fleet Surgical Teams are often deployed with LHAs, enhancing their medical
capabilities.
LHA Organic Medical Assets
LHA MEDICAL F ACILITIES
2 Operating Rooms
1 Minor OR
17 ICU Beds
48 Ward Beds
0 Overflow beds
Ancillary:
Lab.. ... ... ... . yes
X-ray. ... ... .. yes
Blood Bank yes
LHD M EDICAL MANNING
1 Medical Corps
1 Dental Corps
0 Nurse Corps
0 Anesthesia Provider
1 Med. Service Corps
16 Hospital Corpsmen
3 Dental Technicians
3 Dental Operations
Wasp Class
USS Wasp (LHD 1), Norfolk, Va.
USS Essex (LHD 2), San Diego, Calif.
USS Kearsarge (LHD 3), Norfolk, Va.
USS Boxer (LHD 4) , San Diego, Calif.
USS Bataan (LHD 5), Norfolk, Va.
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6), San Diego, Calif.
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) — under construction
Tarawa Class
USS Tarawa (LHA 1), San Diego, Calif.
USS Saipan (LHA 2), Norfolk, Va.
USS Belleau Wood (LHA 3), Sasebo, Japan
USS Nassau (LHA 4), Norfolk, Va.
USS Peleliu (LHA 5), San Diego, Calif.

Mebbe an F-35B contender?

Japan lays keel for 22DDH Helicopter Carrier 14 Feb 2012

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... amp;id=326

"A keel-laying ceremony for the first 22DDH helicopter carrier for the Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force (JMSDF) was held at IHI Marine United's (IHIMU's) Yokohama on 27 January 2012. Japan already has two helicopter carriers -- the Hyuga deployed in March 2009 and the Ise deployed in March 2011 -- but the new vessel will be larger.

The 22DDH is scheduled for deployment in 2015. It will be 248 m long and cost around US$1.04 billion. It is 30 percent bigger than the Ise and can carry 14 helicopters. The Ise measures 197 m, has a displacement of 13,500 tons and can carry 11 helicopters.

The Japanese vessel will be equipped with the latest U.S. weapons systems to maximize its capability. It will be equipped with the Raytheon air and missile defense systems. The new carrier will house mainly helicopters designed for anti-submarine warfare operations.

There are increasing calls within Japan to modify the 22DDH for fighter jets. But critics say it would be unrealistic to build such an aircraft carrier since its navy has only 45,000 personnel and given the current budget constraints.

General characteristics
Displacement: 19,500 tonnes empty
27,000 tons full load
Length: 248.0 m
Beam: 38.0 m
Speed: 30 knots
Complement: 970 (crew and troops)
Aircraft carried: up to 14 helicopters

http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/s ... _16DDH.jpg

Artist impression of the future 19,500 tons 22DDH next to the existing 13,500 tons Hyuga class (source: Internet)"

spazsinbad wrote:

Mebbe an F-35B contender?

No, 22DDH won't operate fixed wing aircraft, especially not V/STOL types. Its flight deck is not configured to take the heat of a jet blast.

When Japan does do naval aviation again, it will be a STOBAR carrier.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC