Forum: Program and politics

'bjr1028' you should read what I type here. Why not start a thread to whine about NOT having ski jumps on USMC LHAs? Thanks.

F-16.net Sponsor

Look Spaz, I can see you're pi$$ed, but you opened this can of worms yourself by posting an article WRITTEN BY A USMC MAJOR on the advantages of ski-jumps. Deal with it. I've seen you post a few threads here that weren't even relevant to the F-35 topic (which is understandable given the lack of action on other topics), so don't "spit the dummy" over some minor thread creep. Now that the MoD's reversal has been pretty much finalized, perhaps it is time to start a new thread on how a 60,000 ton ski-jump carrier can be effectively utilized. I'd be curious about the aircraft-mix, support, and the makeup of a CVF carrier-group. I'm not even sure if the UK can put a carrier group together as they very short of warships and those they do have are often barely armed.

Last edited by spazsinbad on May 28, 2012 - 04:01 PM; edited 1 time in total

And I have made it clear that this old USMC Ski Jump testing material is for the CVF and any other ski jumped flat deck and NOT for the purposes of convincing anyone about the merits of USN/USMC flat decks acquiring ski jumps. Don't be so lazy. Start your own thread for gorsake.

Soon a 100 Mb PDF will be at the SpazSinbad page on Microsoft SkyDrive which will be about the 'ski jump ramp' and STOs and EAFs. The PDF 'SomeSkiJumpRampEAF+AM-2Info' will be in a folder named "_F-35 PDFs with Embedded Videos" at:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6 ... =822839791

Now Direct Link to PDF in folder: https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD63D6 ... 0707E6!223

Material about CVF Optimised Ski Jump amongst other info not yet placed in this forum is in the PDF. Of course some stuff here is repeated in PDF - that's life.
___________-

'1st503rdsgt' said: "...I've seen you post a few threads here that weren't even relevant to the F-35 topic..." WOW! And these 'irrelevant posts' were moved elsewhere. Go figure.

11Mb F-16.net version of the 'Ski Jump, STO & EAF AM-2 matting' PDF attached.

Spaz, thanks as always for the detailed and well researched response

An excellent over view of Carrier Aviation from an English perspective is available as a PDF:

'How Carrier operations Work’ By EAO Steve George BSc MSc CEng FRAeS Cdr RN 28 March 2012

http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/wp-cont ... opsPTT.pdf (4.6Mb) ‘The Particular Mechanics of Carrier Aviation’
OR
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012/03 ... ions-work/

The article was written [28 March 2012] before the change back to F-35B from F-35C and as the article points out there are similarities for flat deck operations for both types.

RAF Lossiemouth:
'The Aircraft Carrier - Not a Floating Airfield': http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/wp-cont ... gure-1.png

Astonishing amount of deck space when comparing CVF to olden CVS.

Graphic from URL below:

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... hips14new?

Zooming out a bit..

I wonder if something like a navalized Taranis could operate off her ramoed deck?

Another comparo: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/uk/11 ... gn_976.jpg
[Yes - this is the pic there at URL]
&
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... son_lg.jpg

Not so sure the F-35B on a 20kT dedicated ship isn't a better situation than on a LHA.

madrat wrote:

Not so sure the F-35B on a 20kT dedicated ship isn't a better situation than on a LHA.

It would be a much better situation. Harriers and transport helicopters tend to get in each other's way and that would get worse with twice as many fighters on the LHAs. I've been thinking about for a while, they'd better off shifting LHA-6/7 to a command/ SOCOM support role, buying more LHD-8 type ships and replacing the LSDs with a modified LCI/Canberra type that would act as a hybrid LSD/CVE.

Plus you have dedicated support, stores, and mission. The LHA has too much on its platter already, it doesn't need F-35B to gum up workflow.

And yet this thread is about CVFs?

UK F-35B Decision Reversed Cause and effect | by: John D. Gresham May 10, 2012

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... -reversed/

“The British Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced May 10, 2012, that the Royal Navy’s (RN) new carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales will operate the F-35B version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), rather than the previously announced F-35C. This reversion to the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the JSF, which had been chosen before Prime Minister David Cameron reversed the decision in favor of the F-35C CV version, is already creating massive ripples in the air and naval world, some extending well beyond Great Britain....

...In summary, the RN move to the F-35B version of the JSF continues their strong tradition and commitment to STOVL and helicopters for sea-based aviation operations. It also is a boost to the F-35B variant of the JSF, since many critics had seized upon the UK’s switch from F-35B to F-35C as an indictment of the STOVL variant, pointing out additionally that the switch would increase the price of each individual F-35B due to reduced procurement numbers. In the end, the projected additional procurement costs for the two carriers simply due to the conversion to catapult launch and arrested recovery operation, plus a three-year delivery delay, proved too much of a penalty.”

Jump to the MORE!

Forum: Program and politics

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C