F-16.net

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

<i>Actually, that`s incorrect, the Sea King ASaC 7 has exactly the same endurance as the Hawkeye 2000, around 4 hours. I do agree though that the Hawkeye has it beaten hands down on altitude and therefore sensor range.
The job of Sea king is to provide detection of low flying aircraft or missiles and manage the battle space, which it certainly can do with it`s battle management system. It can also give over the horizon targeting data for surface to surface missiles, and is equipped with datalinks of course.
The MASC solution could be Merlin although NH-90 is being looked at as well, even aerostats and UAVs` were considered! Wonder if the USN has any Trackers in one piece at AMARC! I kid you not, that question was actually raised.

In conclusion though, it is no substitute for a high flying Hawkeye. I know which system the RN really wants, Hawkeye -D. I think it`s ISD is around 2010.</i>

Actually, the E-2C's endurance is 6.25 hours on station with fuel for 200nm radius to station. Total unrefueled flight endurance is ~8 hours with safety reserves. Typical station altitude is about 6000~8000m (18,000~24,000 ft), radar horizon at 350~400km for sea level targets.

F-16.net Sponsor

Thumper3181 wrote:

The ski jump merely allows for a shorter takeoff roll. The LHA/LHDs at 850-900 feet long the Navy has decided that a ski jump is not necessary. Please quantify what advantage the ski jump confers over a 600 foot take off roll.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the LHA is to project power ashore. Go tell the Marines that they don;t need those Harriers to support them.

Norman Polmar Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet 16th Edition.

Yes to support it own amphibious assault operations. I'm not saying that it can't support its own independent air cover, I'm saying it doesn't do the job of an aircraft carrier. The air complement on an LHA is good for supporting amphibious assault operations from that LHA, but the LHA cannot provide air cover for a large task force. Likewise it cannot provide the same effective naval air cover that an aircraft carrier can.

An LHA's main role is amphibious assault, the limited fixed wing capability on board is to support amphibious operations. An aircraft carrier's main purpose is to provide air power to the theater, so obviously it is going to be far more effective in doing that than an LHA.

If you operated a CVF like an LHA then you'd see a dramatic increase in aircraft carried, but then a massive reduction in sortie rate and combat/fuel load.

Thumper3181 wrote:

How about you cite one to support your assertion.

I'm not the one claiming an LHA can do the job of an conventional aircraft carrier.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Who is going to do damage control. Who is going to maintain the ship? Sure you can run a ship with less, but will you have enough firefighters if shes hit. Will you have enough people to perform the thousands of daily maintenance tasks. Small crews are a popular theory, lets see how ell they do in wartime or on a real long cruise.

Who said they are going to reduce numbers in damage control and reduce firefighter on board? When I was aboard HMS Liverpool - a type 42 destroyer, an engineering officer was showing us the now old and numerous computer systems on board and how they will be replaced by single more powerful modern computer systems on board new RN ships. Basically you have far fewer operators on board to operate these newer, more effective systems. The USN are doing the same thing with the CVN-21 carriers and in fact you'll find these ships will probably be more effective in damage control.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

Quote:

Yes to support it own amphibious assault operations. I'm not saying that it can't support its own independent air cover, I'm saying it doesn't do the job of an aircraft carrier. The air complement on an LHA is good for supporting amphibious assault operations from that LHA, but the LHA cannot provide air cover for a large task force. Likewise it cannot provide the same effective naval air cover that an aircraft carrier can.

An LHA's main role is amphibious assault, the limited fixed wing capability on board is to support amphibious operations. An aircraft carrier's main purpose is to provide air power to the theater, so obviously it is going to be far more effective in doing that than an LHA.

If you operated a CVF like an LHA then you'd see a dramatic increase in aircraft carried, but then a massive reduction in sortie rate and combat/fuel load.

It really doesn't matter what their intended roles are. What matters is what they can do.

If the idea is to use an LHA design in the CVF role, it'll have better capabilities than the Invincibles (more aircrafts, more deck space, more hangar space), but roughly 2/3 the deck space afforded by the CVF design. The ski-jump is really a non issue because one can be welded on in a day. Even as is, the LHA has enough sortie rate capacity to support the typical CAP requirements of a carrier task force (typically no more than 4 aircrafts on station and 2~4 on standby anyway). It'll be slower at launching strikes because it doesn't have the auxiliary launch path of the angled deck. Is it adeqaute? Yes. But is it as efficient in high intensity operation cycles? No.

There is also the size of the air wing. The CVF is quite sparsely loaded at 40 aircrafts including about 2 squadrons of F-35s (24), a few AEWs and a score of helos. The LHA will be darn their the maximum capacity with that embarked. Still, they are significantly better than the Invincibles in this regard and they are afterall capable of carrying a docking well for LCACs and an entire deck worth of marine vehicles and gear. This makes them very good 2-in-1 ships if you want to call them that.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

I wrote:

I would expect to see even better performance from Sampson simply because it is perched up higher on CVF.

Thumper wrote:

Not enough to matter against low flying targets.

Irelevent really, CVF won`t be sailing alone and will have AWACS in some form.

Thumper wrote:

Removing the ski ramp and installing an EMALS catapult and arresting gear will not happen overnight if at all. Do you realize what that would entail?

Yes I do, it will mean in the extreme literally replacing huge chunks of the deck and possibly adding extra motors and/or a turbine. This possibility of change will be designed into CVF to make things easier.

Thumper wrote:

Endurance is not the same as persistence. The helo cannot travel as fast so it takes longer to get on station and once there will be more vulnerable to attack. Second the helo cannot loiter at nearly the same altitude. You can see a lot better at 35,000ft than you can at 10,000ft.

Try 24,000ft for Hawkeye ceiling? DL quoted it at that figure, if it is correct. No matter, I agree that Hawkeye would be the better solution than a Helo`.

Dwight` wrote:

..endurance for Hawkeye is actually 6.25 hours...

I got the figure of 4 hours from Vectorsite, no matter, 6.25 hours versus 4 is hardly abysmal.

Thumper wrote:

Who is going to do damage control. Who is going to maintain the ship? Sure you can run a ship with less, but will you have enough firefighters if shes hit. Will you have enough people to perform the thousands of daily maintenance tasks. Small crews are a popular theory, lets see how ell they do in wartime or on a real long cruise.

I agree with you on that Thumper, LEAN manning was tried on HMS Ocean and it works perfectly when everything is working on a ship. When things went awry with equipment she simply didn`t have the manpower to cover. LEAN went TOO far. There has to be a balance.

This is the weakness of LEAN and the RN doesn`t want to go the same route with CVF, however I worry the MOD could try to force this on the Navy to a degree.

Lessons HAVE been heeded though from HMS Ocean and the Navy state that CVF will not be manned in the same manner. They may have a fight on their hands with MOD..

CVF will have a smaller crew than any earlier Carrier but that comes with new technology, the new stuff is just less labour intensive.
The CVN-21 will have a smaller crew than current Nimitz class ships according to some sources. You ask who will do the thousands of everyday maint` tasks? The point is there will be far fewer so you won`t need the same sized crew. I agree the danger comes when you whittle the crew down to dangerously low levels, we will have to see if CVF manning levels are adequate or not.

HMS Ocean will NOT be the standard CVF is constructed to which was to wholly commercial standards rather than traditional militarynaval standards.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 1455 Status: Offline

Guys stop comparing CVF to LHAs`. They are different ships designed for different roles.

One thing I do realise is that JSF is better than a Harrier which is 50 year old technology but CVF AND LHA will both be getting them.

However, fact is CVF CAN carry more aircraft than LHA. CVF willl be BIGGER than LHA.
LHA would be useless for the RN , we might as well keep the Invincible class if we built LHA`s. We would require at least four ships, man them and provide air wings for at least three of them, four ships will be more expensive to run than two large ones. We would have to get rid of the organic amphibious element including huge rear doors and say goodbye to the marines to get an LHA class ship to fulfill the role we want.

LHA can`t hope to provide the same sortie rates as CVF with a smaller number of jets and a smaller deck. Can LHA launch 24 jets in fifteen minutes and recover one a minute at the same time? (source Beedall.)No chance.

We have assault ships for amphibious ops` which are integrated into the whole force rather than a separate entity that can entirely support itself. Please understand that UK PLC cannot afford to do what the USN /USMC does with it`s separate entities. You need to embrace that reality and stop using the USN as the yardstick for RN operations. They ain`t the same fellas!

Bigger ships are more economical, better tactically for the role of carrier and the traditional role that entails. You can keep LHA, we don`t need it. We have to do things which suit the UK, not the USN and their op`s mindset/doctrine.

Right, off the soapbox!

snypa777 wrote:

Guys stop comparing CVF to LHAs`. They are different ships designed for different roles.

One thing I do realise is that JSF is better than a Harrier which is 50 year old technology but CVF AND LHA will both be getting them.

However, fact is CVF CAN carry more aircraft than LHA. CVF willl be BIGGER than LHA.
LHA would be useless for the RN , we might as well keep the Invincible class if we built LHA`s. We would require at least four ships, man them and provide air wings for at least three of them, four ships will be more expensive to run than two large ones. We would have to get rid of the organic amphibious element including huge rear doors and say goodbye to the marines to get an LHA class ship to fulfill the role we want.

LHA can`t hope to provide the same sortie rates as CVF with a smaller number of jets and a smaller deck. Can LHA launch 24 jets in fifteen minutes and recover one a minute at the same time? (source Beedall.)No chance.

We have assault ships for amphibious ops` which are integrated into the whole force rather than a separate entity that can entirely support itself. Please understand that UK PLC cannot afford to do what the USN /USMC does with it`s separate entities. You need to embrace that reality and stop using the USN as the yardstick for RN operations. They ain`t the same fellas!

Bigger ships are more economical, better tactically for the role of carrier and the traditional role that entails. You can keep LHA, we don`t need it. We have to do things which suit the UK, not the USN and their op`s mindset/doctrine.

Right, off the soapbox!

I would agree..........Yet, you have to agree the LHA is very capable design. Very Happy

Last edited by SpeakTheTruth on Aug 05, 2007 - 04:00 PM; edited 1 time in total

Corsair1963 wrote:

I would agree..........Yet, you have to agree the LHA is very capable design

Indeed the LHA is a very capable design. It has just been wrongly selected for comparison to the CVF in this thread. I don't think anyone has questioned its design, just the use of it as a comparison.

Its like a UH-60 Blackhawk. You can fit FFAR and Hellfire missiles to it and it will be a potent threat, but it ain't no Apache or Cobra. Same with the LHA, it has a good size air complement but its not going to be as effective as a large deck aircraft carrier. And likewise a large deck carrier isn't going to be as effective in amphibious assault ops. Thats why the comparison doesn't fit here.

---

EDIT: Sorry Thumper, put your name in the quote there by mistake.

Quote:

Thumper3181 wrote:
I would agree..........Yet, you have to agree the LHA is very capable design

1. I did not write that STT.
2. That is not the point of the thread or my line of thought.

Very simply put. The decision to go with a STOVAL solution makes the CVF no more capable in air ops than the new LHA whcih is being built for half the price.

Ski ramps have nothing to do with it. A long take off run is just as effective. They are both capable of carrying about 40 AC. Both can launch and recover AC. The sortie rates are similar. Both will use F-35Bs. Neither has the capability to deploy a fixed wing AWACs.

If the French could design a workable (sure it has some problems) conventional carrier in the CdG on just about 45,000 tons there should be no reason why the RN cannot do the same on 65,000 tons.

I realize that some people are in denial about it and I am sorry. I did not mean to offend.

I think I will go on to post other subjects since there really is not much else to say about this.

Enthusiast Joined: Aug 18, 2007 Posts: 97 Status: Offline

In regards to the Falklands War has anyone checked this http://www.thunder-works.com/news.htm website out? It looks like a promising flight simulator Off Topic

And yeah I know this post belongs more in the simulators section!

Personally, I think as crazy as it may sounds. The US should subsidize EM Catapults for the CVF's. Of course under the condition that the UK purchase the F-35C. Really, the benefits with added sales of Hawkeyes and cross decking with USN Carriers. Would only be the tip of the iceberg................Remember, any major conflict would likely involve both working hand and hand.

[quote="SpeakTheTruth"]

Corsair1963 wrote:

I would agree..........Yet, you have to agree the LHA is very capable design

Indeed the LHA is a very capable design. It has just been wrongly selected for comparison to the CVF in this thread. I don't think anyone has questioned its design, just the use of it as a comparison.

Its like a UH-60 Blackhawk. You can fit FFAR and Hellfire missiles to it and it will be a potent threat, but it ain't no Apache or Cobra. Same with the LHA, it has a good size air complement but its not going to be as effective as a large deck aircraft carrier. And likewise a large deck carrier isn't going to be as effective in amphibious assault ops. Thats why the comparison doesn't fit here.

True.........during the Second Gulf War USN LHA's and LHD's had to be continuously re-supplied with aircraft store to support Harrier Operations. I believe LCAC's went back and forth between supply ships just to keep up. Of course the forthcoming LHA-6 will have much less of a problem in that dept.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth get go-ahead.