F-16.net

Corsair1963 wrote:

Both types (F-35B & F-35C) are very important to the USN/USMC doctrine. Yet, there is little advantage in operating shorter range F-35B's from CVN's. In all likely hood the USMC will reluctantly except a small number of F-35C's. Otherwise, I think they will be pushed out of USN Carrier Air Wings. Losing aircraft in the process!

Believe me the second option would find nobody crying.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Enthusiast Joined: Mar 13, 2007 Posts: 98 Status: Offline

shiz302 wrote:

F-4 all over again? Well, some of it.

The F-4 Phantom II had personality, character, looks, took a licking and kept on flying on MANY occasions.

The F-35 has no features which I find myself admiring and I doubt its substructure will give it the ability to take to much of a pounding and to keep flying.

Thumper3181 wrote:

No but we all read about the British office who said he would rather have an A-10 on station than a Harrier. But that really is not the point is it. Again, we are talking about aircraft carriers, not Afghanistan.

Yes ONE officer said that...his opinion is not fact. People in the forces will have varied opinions, this particular officer was disappointed with the harriers because the harriers that supported his unit made mistakes, if it were A-10's that made those mistakes he probably would have said the same. The media, who love this sort of thing, got hold of it and made the best story they could out of it. As a whole they have been very valuable.

Also remember the F-35 will be eventually replacing the A-10 in the CAS role.

Thumper3181 wrote:

They changed the design of POW and QE to accommodate F-35Cs? Since when?

65000t displacement is hardly a baby carrier, and as far as we know that isn't even the displacement with full load. The carriers themselves can accommodate a high aircraft complement and they are designed to operate CTOL aircraft with cats and cables which is evident by the size and layout of the deck. Now they have chosen to operate a modest complement of F-35B's in STOVL configuration for certain reasons, but they are still large deck carriers that are not being used to their full potential.

Thumper3181 wrote:

You need to stop misunderstanding what is being written. Where in this thread did I say to do away with the F-35B? But if England really wants to get in bed with France and Germany who are we to stop them?

Thumper3181 wrote:

Quote:

Cutting the F-35B would not be a wise idea

Because it would screw the British and Italians who have banked on using them on their baby carriers.

Sorry I read this and got the impression you were against the F-35B all together. If they they weren't going to do away with the F-35B all together then how is it going to affect the UK and Italy? They still get it, maybe at a slightly higher cost.

Also with France and Germany, its better to have them as friends rather than enemies considering when large amounts of money are been sent annually from the UK to the EU annually (I think in 2000 the UK gave the EU £11 billion). While were not quite enemies with them, we ain't exactly the best of friends and considering were tied in with them in the ever more integrated EU, its best to be on good terms with them seeing as they are the 2 other big players in the EU. You know my opinion of the EU and to be honest it wouldn't bother me one bit if the UK left the EU tomorrow and joined something like NAFTA.

---

Sorry for the late reply, was on holiday in Prague. Its a Beautiful city and would recommend it to anyone.

Quote:

Yes ONE officer said that...his opinion is not fact.

One who desperatly needed fire support. Fire support that was sustainable and persistant. The kind you cannot get with any Harrier.

Quote:

Also remember the F-35 will be eventually replacing the A-10 in the CAS role.

Not so fast. With the new upgrades the AF is not planning on replacing them until well after 2020. They will be replacing them with As.

Quote:

The carriers themselves can accommodate a high aircraft complement and they are designed to operate CTOL aircraft with cats and cables which is evident by the size and layout of the deck.

No no no. We have gone through this ad nauseum in another thread. They don;t have catapults, they don;t have arresting gear and they have a nice big ski jump right in the middle of things. Baring the fact that it's highly unlikely that ski jump will be removed the deck layout is all wrong for CATOBAR ops. Guess thats what you get when you let the french desing your ships.

Quote:

Sorry I read this and got the impression you were against the F-35B all together. If they they weren't going to do away with the F-35B all together then how is it going to affect the UK and Italy? They still get it, maybe at a slightly higher cost.

Slightly higher?
Italy and UK combined may buy 200. It is the addition of the Marine buy that makes it economically viable

Quote:

You know my opinion of the EU and to be honest it wouldn't bother me one bit if the UK left the EU tomorrow and joined something like NAFTA.

There is hope for you yet.

Newbie Joined: Aug 30, 2007 Posts: 3 Status: Offline

Thumper 3181 said "No no no. We have gone through this ad nauseum in another thread. They don;t have catapults, they don;t have arresting gear and they have a nice big ski jump right in the middle of things. Baring the fact that it's highly unlikely that ski jump will be removed the deck layout is all wrong for CATOBAR ops. Guess thats what you get when you let the french desing your ships"

True, but they are designed as such that the ski ramp can be removed and replaced with catapults and arrestor gear. The french have no say in the design but will be taking ideas from the british in terms of layout propulsion etc for their future carrier. Info from janes defence weekly volume 44 issue 37

Thumper3181 wrote:

One who desperatly needed fire support. Fire support that was sustainable and persistant. The kind you cannot get with any Harrier.

Well what was said in the leaked e-mail was that on two occasions the Harrier pilots misidentified the targets and missed the enemy. What made it worse is that they almost hit the actual troops who called in the air support. But this sort of thing does happen with any aircraft, recently 3 British soldiers were killed by a pair of 2 USAF F-15's called in to support them mistakenly dropped a bomb on their position. Errors like this do happen in high intensity fighting. Don't get fixated on one man's opinion especially when he has had a bad experience with the aircraft in question. Look at the general opinion of the aircraft's performance

The general view of the Harrier is that it has performed very well in the air support role. I've spoken to two officers who have server out there who confirm this. Yes the A-10 is going to be slightly better at CAS than your Harriers, F-16', F-15's etc because that is what it was designed for. But your Harriers and F-16's do other useful roles as well, the difference with the Harrier however is that it can operate from rough, unprepared fields thanks to its STOVL capabilities.

Thumper3181 wrote:

No no no. We have gone through this ad nauseum in another thread. They don;t have catapults, they don;t have arresting gear and they have a nice big ski jump right in the middle of things. Baring the fact that it's highly unlikely that ski jump will be removed the deck layout is all wrong for CATOBAR ops. Guess thats what you get when you let the french desing your ships.

Yes and in that thread the majority of posters came to pretty much the same conclusions. Cats and Cables can be fitted to the CVF's if needed, their design allows it. The Ski jump can be removed and whats this about the CVF having the wrong deck layout? Look at the pic below.

The deck layout is suited for CATOBAR operations. In fact that is what it was designed for, it was then adapted for STOVL operations by adding the ski jump. The Invincible deck layout shown there can ONLY operate STOVL, this is far from the case for the CVF. Put it this way if the F-35B was to be discontinued and the RN were still operating Invincible class carriers, then they would have to come up with a new STOVL design fast or just continue using the Harrier. With the CVF they would just operate it in CATOBAR ops and select an appropriate conventional navy aircraft.

Above is the Indian aircraft carrier INS Viraat. This used to be HMS Hermes that served in the Falklands war, when commissioned in 1959 she was a conventional aircraft carrier with cats and cables. Later on she was converted to a STOVL carrier by removing the cats and cables and adding a ski jump. These conversions are not hard as long as you have the appropriate deck geometry and room in the design to add/remove the extra kit and features required - which the CVF does. The Invincible class is a STOVL carrier - thats all it can be, a CVF is a flexible design that can be switched between CATOBAR and STOVL ops.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Slightly higher?
Italy and UK combined may buy 200. It is the addition of the Marine buy that makes it economically viable

Not sure about going as far as economically viable, it would be nice to see some figures on this.

Thumper3181 wrote:

There is hope for you yet.

If you say so chief Very Happy

Quote:

Don't get fixated on one man's opinion especially when he has had a bad experience with the aircraft in question. Look at the general opinion of the aircraft's performance

Okay, I will. The Harrier does not have the combat persistence, low speed handling characteristics, or survivability to make a very good CAS jet. It is a good light bomber and point interceptor. Spare me the "then why do the Marines use it?" Simple answer, nothing else is available to fly off the gators. It really is simple, Harrier is a compromise for when you don't have an airstrip.

Quote:

the difference with the Harrier however is that it can operate from rough, unprepared fields thanks to its STOVL capabilities.

Obviously the A-10 can operate from very similar airfields.

Quote:

Cats and Cables can be fitted to the CVF's if needed, their design allows it.

Go back and look. I never said otherwise It's possible. Is it feasible, is the technology ready for EM catapults, is it economical, is it likely? No to all. Fitting a ski jump on top of catapults is a bit easier than installing catapults and arresting gear.

Quote:

The Ski jump can be removed and whats this about the CVF having the wrong deck layout? Look at the pic below.

I am. Just a few points but there are more. Note location of two catapults. Note location of landing area. Bow catapult infringes on the landing area. You will foul the deck if you attempt to land AC while launching off the catapult. The plane park between the two islands is a joke. You cannot use the elevator if you are parking planes there. Now look at the Nimitz. The decks do not foul in simultaneous ops, there is ample room to park planes and the two forward lifts can be used simultaneously to serve both launching and recovering AC.

Quote:

The deck layout is suited for CATOBAR operations. In fact that is what it was designed for, it was then adapted for STOVL operations by adding the ski jump.

See above comments. Possible, yes, efficient no.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Okay, I will. The Harrier does not have the combat persistence, low speed handling characteristics, or survivability to make a very good CAS jet. It is a good light bomber and point interceptor. Spare me the "then why do the Marines use it?" Simple answer, nothing else is available to fly off the gators. It really is simple, Harrier is a compromise for when you don't have an airstrip.

There's nothing you said there that I disagree with. An aircraft like the A-10 will always be better at CAS than aircraft like the Harrier, F-16 etc because that is solely what it was designed to do. However like you said the Harrier is also a good light bomber and point interceptor but with that one trick up its sleeve - it can operate from unprepared airstrips. Thats is exactly what the harrier was designed to do, and that is what I've been saying all along.

Its a shame when you think that the Harrier was actually a consolation prize after the cancellation of the larger supersonic V/STOL P.1154. The British government strikes again with budget cuts.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Go back and look. I never said otherwise It's possible. Is it feasible, is the technology ready for EM catapults, is it economical, is it likely? No to all. Fitting a ski jump on top of catapults is a bit easier than installing catapults and arresting gear.

EM catapults are not quite there yet, I grant you that. Thats not to say they won't be in the near future, and if the RN do request a change to CATOBAR then it won't be until at least 2015. EM catapults will be a lot easier to install than steam driven ones.

Also arresting gear is just as hard to remove as it is to install. On a Nimitz class they will finish the deck then drill holes in it, lift in the Hydraulic rams then install the cables. The hard part is getting all this heavy kit into position. So for the CVF you could say this is a step that has been delayed indefinitely.

Thumper3181 wrote:

I am. Just a few points but there are more. Note location of two catapults. Note location of landing area. Bow catapult infringes on the landing area. You will foul the deck if you attempt to land AC while launching off the catapult. The plane park between the two islands is a joke. You cannot use the elevator if you are parking planes there. Now look at the Nimitz. The decks do not foul in simultaneous ops, there is ample room to park planes and the two forward lifts can be used simultaneously to serve both launching and recovering AC.

This is just one drawing I posted to show you the deck geometry more than the deck plan suggested there. That drawing is not the official or confirmed deck plan for the CVF if converted to CATOBAR ops. Below is a CG image showing another deck plan, this time the bow catapult is not infringing on the landing area.

If elevators are needed they won't park planes on them. Also I appreciate your comparisons to the Nimitz class but you have to remember the CVF is not trying to be a super-carrier. So you can't use a Nimitz class as the bar for every comparison.

Quote:

However like you said the Harrier is also a good light bomber and point interceptor but with that one trick up its sleeve - it can operate from unprepared airstrips. Thats is exactly what the harrier was designed to do, and that is what I've been saying all along.

A one trick pony is kind of hard to justify. Most CATOBAR AC can operate from rough airstrips. The Jaguar could as well. Further rough airstrips can be put up fairly quickly. No the Harrier was built back in the time when we all thought the bear was going to come over the fence and that there would be a dearth of airstrips. Their naval use came as an after thought.

STOVL AC still have their place but it is not (I think) as prominent a place as it used to be. The UK is going to build two fairly large carriers. They should be designed so that they can be used to their fullest. They should not embark STOVL AC.

I used the Nimitz as an example to show how you place elevators, island and catapults so that you do not have plane handling and sortie issues because of deck design. In fact you can do a really nice carrier at 60 – 65K.

It’s hard to see in the picture you provided but the bow catapult will still interfere with plane parking and the operation of the forward lift on your last rendition. You don’t really have to be an expert to see all of these issues. Think about. Look at the deck plan. Put some planes in motion. Try and land and launch simultaneously. Even if you can do it the sortie rate is going to be terrible.

The shame of it is that all of this is so unnecessary. The original evil in the design is the twin Islands. Don’t believe BAE’s hype for a minute. If twin offered any advantage it would have been done long ago. A single slightly larger island moved aft would fix so much. The lifts could be forward of the single island or separated by the island. There would then be deck to park and service aircraft. One elevator could handle recovered planes and one would serve the catapult.

Why the twin islands? Because BAE could not figure out how to trunk the intakes and exhausts for the gas turbines. The either should have spend some time down in Pascagoula with Northrup Grumman to learn how to do the trunking into a single island and still have enough volume below deck for a decent hangar. Frankly, from a purely engineering and tactical point of view gas turbines on an aircraft carrier are not ideal but it can be done. They are used for ease of maintenance, low cost and low manning. The French had the right idea with CdG. They just cheap-ed out and decided to use a submarine based power plant.

Anyway the whole sorry compromise of a design has forced the MOD to adopt F-35Bs, which for a carrier the size of the POW is a shame. While I am sure it will be a very good plane, the less expensive, more capable plane in terms of range and payload is the F-35C.

One could reasonably expect a 65K ton carrier to be able to travel at 28-30knots. Easily handle 40-45 F-35Cs, 2 or 3 E-2Ds, and 3 or 4 EH101s for ASW/SAR.

I know these are not Nimitz super carriers but at 65K tons they should be more than glorified Invincibles.

Now we cut to the chase. I think the MOD, (especially the RN) knows all of this. While some of this is cost related I also think (my opinion) politics is playing a really big role in this as well. The F-35B is going to be an awesome AC but as configured it does not appear to be a real strong interceptor. It lacks the range and when carrying only internally it does not have the payload. That is not the case with the F-35C. It has the range and it carries 4 AAM internally with the potential to carry more. With the F-35C you could supply all of the RAF and the RNs needs. The B model cannot do that and if you go with the B then there is justification for another fighter (tranche 3)

Have you noticed that both the UK and Italy are now starting to look at ways to get out of the EF deal?

BTW, see whats been done with 65K in the past

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Are the F-35's going to be used for the US Navy?