Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Last edited by maus92 on Dec 08, 2011 - 01:27 AM; edited 1 time in total

The "Midrats" podcast discusses current naval topics. On the most recent episode, "Where Are the Carriers?," Naval Academy instructor J. Talbot Manvel, CAPT, USN (Ret.) discusses carrier design. In one segment, he dispels the notion that STOVL aircraft combined with a LHA-6 are a desirable option. Quite the opposite viewpoint than from industry sponsored think tank promotion...

Lots of info why big deck carriers rule.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/midrats/20 ... e-carriers

F-16.net Sponsor

Funny that... the driver of the ship does not like the idea, but the beneficiary of the air support loves the idea. Guess who I am going with. Smile

I just listened to it and his main issue with the F-35B/LHA combo had more to do with using it instead of a CVN, not that it was a bad option to have in addition to a CVN.

maus92, don't be coy. Which "industry sponsored think tank promotion" is that? We are all friends here.... Without sound on this computer I cannot hear the talk but I go with SWP. Addition is good. Instead? Is that the name of the chookheaded horse on the webpage? Very Happy

http://cdn.btrcdn.com/pics/hostpics/757 ... atsjpg.jpg

Maybe the chickenhorse should be an unicorn?

Dusk Approaches For the Big Deck Nuclear Carrier Age Wednesday, December 7, 2011

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

"...By 2020 aircraft carriers are going to have such an enormous cost that there is no way the nation will build CVNs after CVN-80...."

Of course there is a lot more to the arguments than that single phrase - much the same as any argument I guess. So go to the URL to read all about it.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JR3o9ps2F4w/T ... 1_main.jpg

The matter of 'what kind of aircraft carrier' the U.S. builds is central to the opposing position of some (many) on JSF. If STOVL JSF survives it presents operationally and economically viable alternatives to $13B, 95K ton ships.

"My dog is bigger than yours" arguments reside at the tactical level of war. Issue of "more TACAIR at sea" is a strategic and economic matter. Doesn't matter how good the 95K ton version is -- it can only be one place at a time and it largely does only one thing.

We need CVNs, but the economics are inevitable.

maus92 wrote:

The "Midrats" podcast discusses current naval topics. On the most recent episode, "Where Are the Carriers?," Naval Academy instructor J. Talbot Manvel, CAPT, USN (Ret.) discusses carrier design. In one segment, he dispels the notion that STOVL aircraft combined with a LHA-8 are a desirable option. Quite the opposite viewpoint than from industry sponsored think tank promotion...

Lots of info why big deck carriers rule.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/midrats/20 ... e-carriers

Great show. Thanks for the link. I bookmarked it and will listen to more of them.

I think he made a good case for why we have big carriers. I thought he was less than convincing on putting the the F-35B on LHA's and LHD's was not useful: no ASW, no dedicated AWACS, no Growlers, etc. If you don't put F-35B's on those ship, you still have none of those things, so adding the B's still increases the overall capability of Marine air power just not to the level of big carriers.

Sea Control ships will never be as good as full-blown CVNs.

spazsinbad wrote:

Maybe the chickenhorse should be an unicorn?

Dusk Approaches For the Big Deck Nuclear Carrier Age Wednesday, December 7, 2011

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

"...By 2020 aircraft carriers are going to have such an enormous cost that there is no way the nation will build CVNs after CVN-80...."

Of course there is a lot more to the arguments than that single phrase - much the same as any argument I guess. So go to the URL to read all about it.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JR3o9ps2F4w/T ... 1_main.jpg

The argument that the CV is dead - and comparing them to battleships - is an old one. The only thing that a carrier and a battleship have in common is that they are/were considered capital ships, thus a symbol of national power. The real purpose of a battleship was to fight another dreadnought (with shore bombardment a secondary role.) That mission went away when carrier borne aircraft extended the battlespace beyond gun range.

Carriers remain one of the most immediate, persistant and flexible responses that the US can make to any number of contingencies. It is much more than a ship: it is a mobile base that can be tasked in short order to just about anywhere on earth. The large deck carrier will be around as long as aircraft remain relevant in warfare.

SpudmanWP wrote:

I just listened to it and his main issue with the F-35B/LHA combo had more to do with using it instead of a CVN, not that it was a bad option to have in addition to a CVN.

His point (and mine by extension): go big or go home. A carrier is almost useless unless it is large enough to carry the aircraft to both protect the group (base) and project power. F-35B replacing AV-8B will not materially transform the capabilities of an LHA.

Take Libya for instance. There was no teal threat to any ships in the area. A LHA would have been ale to project a lot of power and provided rapid CAS assets.

Would a CVN been a better option, sure, but there were none in the area.

There are plenty of low-intensity hot-spots around the world where a LHA+F-35 combo would be a huge advantage to our forces in the area.

SpudmanWP wrote:

There are plenty of low-intensity hot-spots around the world where a LHA+F-35 combo would be a huge advantage to our forces in the area.

Critical, or nice to have? The Marines and their goal of having F-35B on the LHAs has less to do with fulfilling foreign policy goals, and more to do with justifying the concept of the aircraft. If a deployment / intervention is critical to US policy, a properly equipped group would be dispatched to meet the contingencies.

Agreed. A full sized carrier has a lot more assets to offer aside from attack aircraft and defensive aircraft. They have AEW&C and EW planes and the necessary logistics to support a much larger sized deployment in any given region. An LHA is nice but for something big it's nice to have highly capable CATOBAR aircraft to project power and defend the battlegroup at all costs.

tacf-x wrote:

Agreed. A full sized carrier has a lot more assets to offer aside from attack aircraft and defensive aircraft. They have AEW&C and EW planes and the necessary logistics to support a much larger sized deployment in any given region. An LHA is nice but for something big it's nice to have highly capable CATOBAR aircraft to project power and defend the battlegroup at all costs.

It's all about the mix. CVNs are an absolute must-have for serious operations, but how many do we really need relative to less capable LHAs that can handle low-intensity, low-risk problems like Libya or Somalia? I don't know.

maus92 wrote:

Critical, or nice to have?

Ask that of the widows of Marines who died in these hotspots due to lack of air-cover (if the F-35B is canceled and threat deemed too low for a CBG).

maus92 wrote:

The Marines and their goal of having F-35B on the LHAs has less to do with fulfilling foreign policy goals, and more to do with getting the job done while protecting Marines on the ground.

Fixed it for ya Wink

maus92 wrote:

If a deployment / intervention is critical to US policy, a properly equipped group would be dispatched to meet the contingencies.

If they cancel the F-35B then they will only have 8-9 deployable carriers at a time (4 on deployment now). With the F-35B there will be twice as many.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35B + LHA 8 <> CVN