Forum: F-35 Lightning II

geogen wrote:

quicksilver wrote:

geogen wrote:

Or... as someone else pointed out, you could put a whole bunch of Super Tucano with 6+ hr endurance on one. It depends on the policymaking, nothing more. If policy makers want to retire those LHD/LHA, then go for it, if it's in the best overall defense interests and if they know something we don't know.

Let's bring this line of thought back to some hard reality --

Just how would these "Super" aircraft (or any other similar non-VTOL, non-STOVL, aircraft sans tailhook) operate from these decks. Have you ever been aboard one of these ships? Have you ever been aboard during flight operations? Search flight deck dimensions and tell us how much space they have between the port scuppers and the foul line. Then explain to us which Navy in the world would (as a matter of routine operations) sign up to the risks inherent in the recovery of said aircraft with other valuable stuff (crew, aircraft, support equipment, oh...and the island) just on the other side of the foul line.

From what I've been told by those who've been on board, there would be some relevant modifications required to Aircraft such as this type and/or LHD/LHA to make such functional operations possible. The deployment would not so much be a standard mix especially in large multi-squadron size, but rather a capability if an operation required such capabilities even in small quantities (such as with 6 a/c, e.g.). There will always be trade-offs, sure, but advantages too.

I guess the point was that, there would be significant, 'currently non-existing' capabilities gained by USMC from such an asset in general and ability to operate from sea would only add that much more flexibility?

And @ Shep, I might be wrong, but how many times have US Marine Harriers been launched from LHD decks to intercept a non-responding commercial airliner @40k feet? There's probably some sort of fallacy in that argument somewhere. Confused

Right, 'relevant mods'. And just what do you think those mods would be? And how much would they cost? And when would they show up in operational terms?

And in addition to the prohibitive costs, since there is only 50' to work with between the port scuppers and the foul line, no Navy will ever sign up to doing it.

No one. Ever. Period.

F-16.net Sponsor

quicksilver wrote:

And in addition to the prohibitive costs, since there is only 50' to work with between the port scuppers and the foul line, no Navy will ever sign up to doing it.

No one. Ever. Period.

OV-10's have operated off the USS Nassau (LHA-4) back in the 80's.

maus92 wrote:

quicksilver wrote:

And in addition to the prohibitive costs, since there is only 50' to work with between the port scuppers and the foul line, no Navy will ever sign up to doing it.

No one. Ever. Period.

OV-10's have operated off the USS Nassau (LHA-4) back in the 80's.

Yeah and they landed a C130 on a big deck back in the 60s; we're talking routine ops not a test demo.

USS Nassau (LHA 4)
"...In 1983, NASSAU participated in the annual amphibious Exercise SOLID SHIELD. Marine Corps OV-10 "Bronco" aircraft landed for the first time on the flight deck of a ship from the Atlantic Fleet...."
http://navysite.de/ships/lha4.htm
__________________

CHAPTER VII - THE MARITIME CAMPAIGN

http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gulf/gwtxt_ch7.html

"SPECIAL NOTE
"The US COV-10 observation aircraft spotted an Iraqi artillery post in southern Kuwait that had been harassing Coalition troops in Saudi Arabia. The plane relayed the coordinates to USS Wisconsin which silenced the enemy emplacement with 16-inch shells. The emplacement was hit at an estimated range of 19 miles from USS Wisconsin. After the shelling the pilot of the OV-10 reported back, 'Artillery destroyed.'" - Intelligence Officer, USS Wisconsin
______________________
_____________

V: "THUNDER AND LIGHTNING"- THE WAR WITH IRAQ

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/ds5.htm

"...OV-10 Broncos and AH-l Cobra attack helicopters provided close-air support during these operations and helped clear the way for the fast-moving 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions. Close-air support, with constant danger from small-arms fire, shoulder-fired missiles and possible "friendly fire," was not a new mission for the A-6 or the Cobra, both of which saw action in Vietnam.

The AV-8B, on the other hand, saw its first sea-based combat action. Flying from the amphibious assault ships USS Tarawa (LHA l) and USS Nassau (LHA 4) as well as from ground bases, the Harrier demonstrated the Navy/Marine team's versatility and effectiveness, as did the OV-10 ashore. Twelve Broncos transited the Atlantic aboard America and Theodore Roosevelt. As the carriers entered the Mediterranean, the Broncos flew off to finish their trip to Saudi Arabia...."

"Operational historyThe OV-10 served in the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy, as well as in the service of a number of other countries. A total of 81 OV-10 Broncos were ultimately lost to all causes during the course of the Vietnam War, with the Air Force losing 64, the Navy 7 and the Marines 10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Amer ... -10_Bronco

US Marine Corps
The OV-10 was first acquired by the U.S. Marine Corps. Each of the Marine Corps' two observation squadrons (designated VMO) had 18 aircraft - nine OV-10As and nine OV-10Ds night observation aircraft. A Marine Air Reserve observation squadron was also established. The OV-10 operated as a forward air controller and was finally phased out of the Marine Corps in 1995 following its employment during Operation Desert Storm, which also saw the final combat losses of OV-10s by US forces. Among these losses were two USMC OV-10s being shot down due to a lack of effective infrared countermeasures. It was also thought that the slow speed made it more vulnerable to anti-aircraft weapons.[11] Forward air control passed mostly to ground units with laser designators and digital radios (GFACs) and the twin-seat F/A-18D Hornet (FAC(A)s). Most operational U.S. Broncos were reassigned to civil government agencies in the U.S., while some were sold to other countries."
_________________

An OV-10A of VMO-1 operating from USS Nassau in 1983:
"A flight deck crewman uses an MD-3A tow tractor to position a North American Rockwell OV-10A Bronco (BuNo 155447) of U.S. Marine Corps observation squadron VMO-1 on the port elevator of the U.S. amphibious assault ship USS Nassau (LHA-4) in 1983. After its retirement this aircraft was leased by the U.S. Department of State to the Colombian national police."

"A North American Rockwell OV-10A Bronco of U.S. Marine Corps observation squadron VMO-1 takes off from the flight deck of the U.S. amphibious assault ship USS Nassau (LHA-4) in 1983."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _1983.jpeg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _1983.jpeg

Dempsey Backs Off on F-35 Cost Criticism; Speaks Of Budget Juggle By Otto Kreisher : Nov 18, 2011

http://defense.aol.com/2011/11/18/demps ... d=related2

"WASHINGTON: The nation's top military officer today insisted he did not oppose the expensive and controversial F-35, on which three of the four services he leads depend on for their future air capabilities.

Asked about his recent congressional testimony that the nation "might not be able to afford" the three F-35 variants, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said: "I didn't have a cross hair on the F-35. I would have said the same thing about the ground combat vehicle," he said, referring to the Army's top procurement priority. The chairman clearly wanted to clear the air.

Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said his response was in the context of a prior question about the impact of the additional $600 billion in defense budget cuts that would happen if failure of the congressional "super committee" forces sequester of $1.2 trillion in spending.

"I want everyone to know this will affect everything."...

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Can the DoD can afford all three flavors of the F-35?