Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 May 2014, 04:50

AND... The folderol begins.... Probably best read at source - for all the nuance. :-)
Asia Pacific security: Is the F-35B relevant? 21 May 2014 Robert Farley

"With Prime Minister Tony Abbott implying recently that Australia could buy the F-35B 'jump jet' version of the Joint Strike Fighter (a suggestion reinforced this week by Defence Minister David Johnston), this is a good time to ask: what relevance could the F-35B have for the Asia Pacific?...

...We can disaggregate this issue into two questions. First, how will the F-35B expand the reach of US Navy capabilities in the Asia Pacific? And second, how can the F-35B improve the capabilities of partner navies in the Asia Pacific, especially the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN), the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), and the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF)?

The first question has three potential answers:

1. Amphibious warships (which resemble mini-carriers) carrying F-35Bs can fill in for big carriers in less critical parts of the world. The USS Kearsarge, for example, conducted air operations off Libya (with AV-8B Harriers and MV-22 Ospreys) during the 2011 civil war, allowing the large carriers to remain in other areas. The cycle of maintenance, repair and training for carriers and their air wings means the US Navy can only deploy a few of its ten carrier battle groups at any given time. Assigning lower priority stations to amphibious ships like the USS America and USS Tripoli reduces the strain on the carrier fleet as a whole.

2. Amphibious ships with F-35Bs could fill gaps in the high-intensity combat capabilities of the US Navy. The US Navy's vision of naval air employment relies on F-35s to play a very specific role at the centre of a system of F/A-18s, EA-18 Growlers, and unmanned aerial vehicles. F-35s act as network nodes that enhance the capability of the entire air wing. Accordingly, it's not quite right to think of the contribution of an F-35B squadron strictly in terms of the number of fighters it provides. Given that the future of the US Navy's F-35C remains uncertain, F-35Bs have a way to contribute to high-intensity carrier ops. However, the shorter range of the F-35B and the lower tempo of amphibious flight operations remain an obstacle for envisioning the F-35B in a high-intensity combat context.

3. F-35Bs give the US Marine Corps 'skin in the game' with respect to the Pacific pivot. The Marines (along with the Army) have struggled thus far to figure out how they fit into the Obama's Administration's grand strategic shift to the Asia Pacific. This has led to a degree of inter-service conflict over how the pivot will play out. Integrating the F-35B, flown exclusively by Marines, into the pivot helps undermine any political opposition from the USMC to devoting greater resources to the Asia Pacific....

...The obstacles to operating the F-35B from a small amphibious ship such as the Canberra class are substantial. The F-35B is less capable than the land-based version Australia has ordered, the F-35A, meaning small military forces such as the Australian Defence Force would need to commit immense resources to what amounts to a niche capability. Although the flat-decked amphibious ships of the ROKN, JMSDF and RAN could operate the F-35B, they can't do so very efficiently, and only at the cost of effectiveness in other operations. It's difficult to imagine F-35Bs launched from ROKS Dokdo or HMAS Canberra having a decisive impact on any imaginable conflict in the Asia Pacific.

And so until Korea, Japan, or Australia decide to commit to a dedicated carrier similar in size and capability to those of the Royal Navy (or at the very least to the Italian Cavour), the biggest impact of the F-35B in the Asia Pacific will be on US capability. If any of those three do decide to make the leap, however, the F-35B can provide a better bridge to naval aviation effectiveness than its STOVL predecessor, the Harrier."

SOURCE: http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/201 ... evant.aspx
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2078
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post21 May 2014, 06:59

Australia has always insisted on having the most amount of protection when sailing troops into distant lands for battle. Even in WW2, Australia refused to send a single troop out of Australia until battleship escort was provided by the UK for troop transports. That modus operandi and line of thought still applies today. The Canberra have excellent protection and AAW escorts in the form of Hobart Aegis destroyers. No number of Hobarts will stop air detection and further air attacks though. The greatest threat is an MPA (or increasingly an MPUAV). You don't need a large amount of fighter escort for a convoy defence mission. That's why CAM ships were popular (and effective) in WW2. Nothing much has changed. Shoot down an MPA and the convoy is safer as the aggressor doesn't know where the fleet is exactly (even though they know its out there somewhere). You can't chase down an MPA with a 30 kt destroyer. You can with a 600 kt fighter.

Similarly, the Koreans and more so for the Japanese can use F-35Bs for SLOC defence due to the LNG/Oil Tankers that are the lifeblood and where they require to traverse a long journey across potentially aggressive waters. That's the role of an escort carrier. For too many decades, the public have only seen aircraft carriers from the eyes of large nimitz sized CVNs.

As important also is the base access for F-35A. How many 8000+ ft airfields are available to house F-35As on expeditionary missions? That's alway a big headache for PACAF but that's another discussion that is no longer relevant for RAAF acquisition (having selected the F-35A as the primary fighter).
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post22 May 2014, 15:32

This is from a guy who loves the F-35B:

Not Every Flattop Is an Aircraft Carrier
Why Big Deck Amphibs Can't Replace the Navy's CVNs

By Bryan McGrath via Real Clear Defense
Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group defense consultancy and the Assistant Director of Hudson Institute’s Center for American Seapower

"....Let’s face it. A 45,000 ton ship with a large, horizontal flight deck and up to 20 F-35B Joint Strike Fighters sure does look like an aircraft carrier. And I have to admit that on more than one occasion I have very publicly mused at the possibility of making better use of those planes to project seapower ashore rather than simply (or primarily) reserving them for the support of Marines ashore.

We must however, resist the urge to get sloppy with our designations simply because of budget constraints. The Congress of the United States requires the Navy to operate and maintain eleven aircraft carriers as a way of executing its responsibility to provide and maintain a Navy. I believe its intent here is clear, though admittedly the statute is worded in a manner which encourages the sort of mischief Dr. Farley advocates. So why is it important to get the designations right?..."

"What Is an Aircraft Carrier?

An aircraft carrier is more than a ship that carries airplanes. In order to effectively employ naval aviation for power projection, an aircraft carrier and its embarked air wing must be thought of as a single combat system....."

"...To conduct coordinated operations, counter enemy aircraft, and be directed to targets more than hundreds of miles away, strike aircraft require organic (to the air wing) situational awareness and command and control. This is provided by Airborne Early Warning (AEW aircraft) – in our Navy, the E-2 (C and D) – four of which are assigned to the average aircraft carrier. This is the naval analog to the Air Force “AWACS” aircraft and is essential for strike aircraft to attack targets far from the carrier at sea or ashore.

Furthermore, because strike aircraft will likely operate within range of enemy surface to air missile systems, the combat system must provide for a means of countering enemy radar and missile systems. In our Navy, this role is taken by the EA-6B or the F-18G (Growler), of which, five are usually assigned to the modern aircraft carrier.

The aircraft carrier combat system has further requirements for vertical replenishment, medical evacuation, combat search and rescue, anti-surface warfare, maritime interdiction, close air support, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare and special warfare support. These roles are filled in the modern air wing by the MH-60S and R, of which 12-16 are typically assigned.

Notice that not a single strike fighter has yet to be discussed in this system. That is because in order to autonomously employ those strike fighters in a contested environment, the aircraft carrier must FIRST account for all of the above. Only then, when it can perform command and control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, electronic warfare, combat search and rescue and close-in anti-submarine warfare—can the system effectively be employed to project power. ..."

"What Is an Amphibious Assault Ship?

An amphibious assault ship and its embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit is a combat system designed and optimized to project and sustain land power from the sea. This combat system is not designed to control the seas or the skies from which it operates. This mission is left to other parts of the fleet design (including the aircraft carrier). The U.S. Navy operates two types of amphibious assault ships, the Wasp-class LHD and the America-class LHA. As stated earlier, these ships look like aircraft carriers, largely because they have a flat deck and they carry airplanes. The advent of the F-35B will bring much more capable airplanes to its deck, but those airplanes will still be part of a system optimized for the projection of land power ashore. There are no AEW aircraft assigned to an LHD/LHA. All U.S. Navy AEW aircraft are catapult launched, rather than short or vertical take-off (like all aircraft on LHD/LHA which are not catapult equipped). The LHD/LHA must rely on the carrier based E-2C/D or even land based AEW.

The LHD/LHA does not have the ability to project its airpower ashore using organic electronic warfare assets (such as the EA-6B or the F/A-18G). If its aircraft are operating in an electronic warfare environment, it must rely on the carrier air wing for its jamming or on land-based assets. Again, the Navy operates only catapult launched jammers, not short or vertical take-off variants.

And while the LHD/LHA does have a number of helicopters in its combat system, they are largely reserved once again for the primary mission of projecting landpower ashore, rather than in controlling the seas around them. This mission is left to the helicopters belonging to the cruiser/destroyer escorts that accompany this amphibious combat system to provide it support. In fairness within this comparison, there are also escorts assigned to the aircraft carrier for its support; however, its air wing is by itself capable of contributing to the protection of the ship, which is not the case for the LHD/LHA...."

"Not Interchangeable

Simply put, the aircraft carrier and the amphibious assault ship have different jobs in the Navy, and are designed differently in order to carry out those jobs. That an LHD/LHA with a dozen or more F-35B’s could in fact be a powerful presence on the horizon does not mean that it can replace a CVN.

Additionally, the math does not scale up. Those who say, “we could buy three amphibious assault ships for the price of one aircraft carrier” fail to account for the fact that such a transaction would result in the purchase of no combat systems designed to project naval power at a distance and in a contested environment. The plain, ugly truth is that the large, nuclear powered aircraft carrier is an essential element of the combat system necessary to do that essential job, and it is for the foreseeable future, the best way to do so.

Some suggest that the U.S. Navy could do what other navies do, and equip helicopters for the AEW mission. Additionally, some say the stealth of the F-35 series will obviate the need for jammers in the future battlefield, or failing that, a short or vertical take-off F-35 “Jammer” could be developed for employment on the amphibious assault ships. A ship so equipped would almost certainly be inferior to both the present combat system designed to project naval power in a contested environment AND the present combat system designed to project and protect land-power ashore.

These are interesting ideas, and in a navy of more modest capability and capacity, potentially sensible. But that would be a Navy of a far different design than the one we have today and one that would be far less suitable to the needs of the world’s most powerful and important maritime nation."

Read it all:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/article ... 07238.html
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 676
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post22 May 2014, 17:40

Some STOVL news

Pax readies F-35B ski jump

http://www.dcmilitary.com/article/20140 ... i-launches
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 May 2014, 17:59

Brilliant 'zerion' - many thanks. I think we should start a SKI JUMPY thread now? Perhaps there is one to add to? Whatever. But thanks a mil. :D
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 676
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post22 May 2014, 18:14

spazsinbad wrote:Brilliant 'zerion' - many thanks. I think we should start a SKI JUMPY thread now? Perhaps there is one to add to? Whatever. But thanks a mil. :D


I wasn't sure if one had already been started so I stuck it here. I'll look for an old one.
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post22 May 2014, 18:32

maus92 wrote:This is from a guy who loves the F-35B:

Not Every Flattop Is an Aircraft Carrier
Why Big Deck Amphibs Can't Replace the Navy's CVNs

By Bryan McGrath via Real Clear Defense
Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group defense consultancy and the Assistant Director of Hudson Institute’s Center for American Seapower

"....Let’s face it. A 45,000 ton ship with a large, horizontal flight deck and up to 20 F-35B Joint Strike Fighters sure does look like an aircraft carrier. And I have to admit that on more than one occasion I have very publicly mused at the possibility of making better use of those planes to project seapower ashore rather than simply (or primarily) reserving them for the support of Marines ashore.
--------trimmed-------
Some suggest that the U.S. Navy could do what other navies do, and equip helicopters for the AEW mission. Additionally, some say the stealth of the F-35 series will obviate the need for jammers in the future battlefield, or failing that, a short or vertical take-off F-35 “Jammer” could be developed for employment on the amphibious assault ships. A ship so equipped would almost certainly be inferior to both the present combat system designed to project naval power in a contested environment AND the present combat system designed to project and protect land-power ashore.

These are interesting ideas, and in a navy of more modest capability and capacity, potentially sensible. But that would be a Navy of a far different design than the one we have today and one that would be far less suitable to the needs of the world’s most powerful and important maritime nation."



The problems with this article are built right inside.
It begins by suggesting that there is no way to conduct airpower operations except with a Navy CVN. The key elements to the argument is that the CVN is the only way to launch Hawkeye and Prowler/Growler jammers.
Then at the end of the article there is grudging acceptance that perhaps there are other platforms that can perform the roles of command&control and jamming that don't require CVNs. Then he comes to the rescue by saying such a solution won't be equivalent of the capacity you get with CVNs.

It misses the point and presents a strawman argument that undefined villains are claiming the smaller flat deck platforms are just as good as the CVNs, threatening the future of the Navy perhaps? I haven't heard anyone suggesting that.

In reality there are small jobs that need to be done all around the world and we don't always need the CVN for every one. The United States citizens have chosen federal dollars to be spent so that they can be well Medicated instead of being well Protected. That is the fight to fight -- not LHD/LHA vs. CVN.
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 676
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post22 May 2014, 19:09

Closest thing to ski jump thread spaz. Should we make a new one?

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14082&hilit=Ski+jump
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 May 2014, 19:36

Good find. The ski jump thing has me hitting my PDF pages to update them. I think that thread you mention is a good one to add your info and I will attempt to find the images not NOT HOTLINKED in the early pages and add those when possible.

There is another old thread with excellent graphics made by SWP showing where the ski jump is at Pax River but these days we have several good photos showing it also after that particular time. The thread you mention shows the AM-2 matting etc. which is good also. So pick that particular thread you mention please? Tah.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 May 2014, 18:26

Looks like our PM and DefMin really like the idea of F-35Bs on our Ozzian LHDs.
White Paper to consider F-35Bs for LHDs – report 23 May 2014 australianaviation.com.au

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott has instructed the authors of the new Defence White Paper currently in preparation to consider the acquisition of the STOVL F-35B variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to operate from the Navy’s forthcoming LHD amphibious ships.

“It is understood Mr Abbott has instructed planners working on his defence white paper to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 of the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the JSFs — the F-35B — on to the ships,” a report in The Australian newspaper on Friday says.

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister contacted by the newspaper did not confirm or deny the suggestion the F-35B would be considered as part of the White Paper process, only noting that the White Paper’s Force Structure Review would: “examine a range of capabilities and will provide the government with options to ensure Australia maintains a sustainable, versatile and highly capable defence force in coming decades”....

...But the question of F-35Bs being acquired for the ADF was subsequently flagged by Defence Minister David Johnston in an interview with The Weekend West on May 17, where he said the acquisition of the F-35B was “an option which has been considered from day one.”

SOURCE: http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... ds-report/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 May 2014, 20:50

IF OK with meditators the entire PDF could be uploaded here but I'll gather it is still available at source... Meanwhile here is a relevant excerpt with other articles in this 2010 special edition also relevant (and probably already mentioned in this thread but NOT THIS ONE for the CAS init).
THE NAVY - Special Edition Oct-Dec 2010 Vol 72 No4 http://www.navyleague.org.au
Amphibious Close Air Support

Close Air Support & Naval Aviation - The Natural Combination by Dr Norman Friedman

"...Both the historical record and the basic logic of the situation, then, suggest that it is the grossest folly to imagine that a limited number of long-range land-based fighter-bombers are an adequate substitute for a small number of
fighter-bombers near the scene of an operation. Advocates of land-based air power reject any such suggestion, but they have neither historical experience nor analysis on their side. Matters are particularly bad for a country like Australia, whose force of fighter-bombers is very limited in numbers because each airplane is so expensive. In the past, Australian defence policy has emphasized the direct defence of the country. Given limited numbers, it is clearly impossible to station aircraft all around the periphery of the country, even all around the area which might be subject to attack. The solution was to build unoccupied airfields, moving the finite fighter force to whichever one was in range of the threat. That policy carries with it real problems, but it was certainly a way to compromise between aircraft numbers and geography....

...The STOVL version of the JSF offers many logistics and training synergies with the RAAF’s land based version and would enable future Australian CAS requirement from the LHDs to be met. Further, these synergies and added operational flexibility would save the ADF many millions of dollars in added operational costs to get the land based JSF to the battle. It should also be noted that the fused, integrated and linked sensor package in one JSF far outweighs the reconnaissance and surveillance capability of many of Army’s fleet of Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters. Thus negating the need for them on the LHDs and freeing space for JSF employment.

OTHER ARTICLES IN SAME PDF ONLINE:

THE CANBERRA CLASS LHDs

CARRIER BORNE CLOSE AIR SUPPORT – HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
By CDR David Hobbs MBE, RN (Rtd)

CLOSE AIR SUPPORT AND NAVAL AVIATION – THE NATURAL COMBINATION
By Dr Norman Friedman

THE CHALLENGES OF AN ORGANIC FIXED WING CAPABILITY FOR AUSTRALIA’S LHDs
By Mark Boast [ex-A4G RAN FAA pilot and then SHAR pilot Sqdn CO & Test Pilot]

SOURCE: http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/upl ... t-2010.pdf (3.2Mb)
Attachments
CAS & NavAv The-Navy-Vol_72_No_4-Oct-2010.pdf
(249.54 KiB) Downloaded 224 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 May 2014, 06:02

The Cost of Defence ASPI Defence Budget Brief 2014–2015
“...No doubt the situation will become obvious in the development of the 2015 Defence White Paper. When it does, we should expect to see two things. First, the size of the force will grow. An extra battalion or two to crew the new LHD amphibious vessels would help bring things into balance, as would a squadron of jump jet variants of the F-35 to reinstate the fleet air arm aboard the LHD. Such possibilities aren’t to be discounted. Back in 2008 Andrew Davies and I modelled the sorts of defence forces we could have if we spent around 2% of GDP in the 2020s (see the ASPI paper Strategic Choices: Defending Australia in the 21st Century) and we were surprised by just how much capability could be afforded....” (page 141)

Source: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/th ... ce2014.pdf (6.4Mb)
Attachments
Cartoon + QUOTE F-35Bs on LHDs  ASPI CostofDefence2014.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post30 May 2014, 07:13

Why do people continue to show/draw "air data probes" on operationally representative jets?

btw, What is that black bulge under all the silhouetted F-35s?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 May 2014, 08:00

:doh: Oz Cartoonist are not always noted for being bright - just funni. I guess the bulge below is a 12.4 Bil Bombe? Is that a berm? (Inspector Closeau).
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

delvo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 690
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06

Unread post30 May 2014, 14:58

Maybe the drawing is based on images of an old X-35B. At least one did have something that looked like an air scoop down there.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests