Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

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

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1734
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post05 Jun 2014, 19:52

Good link, Thank! Thought the timing argument was interesting. Looking at this as a 4th sqn rather than possibly amending the previous order. I would have tot swapping the A for B would reduce the 2016 vs 2022 gap.

Intersting to speculate on the 4th sqn. If USMC-sized (16 instead of 24), might actually save a bit of money (but lower airframe numbers). Another option might be to go 28 (and meet the 100 commitment). Since this sqn will replace the Growlers, might also be interesting to see if the USMC variant's EW/EA capability meets expectation (The usmc were looking to replace the EA-6s with the 35B.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jun 2014, 20:13

Lots of speculation there. As the PDF of excerpts made clear the ADF bigwigs are not willing to speculate until they look at the issue via the White Paper process due in 2015. I DO NOT believe that the RAAF Growlers will be replaced any time soon - especially if they are able to upgrade to NGJ - once again speculation upon speculation.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post05 Jun 2014, 20:17

I expect you will see the Growlers kept in RAAF service until at least 2030…and that they will outlive the Super Hornets. In fact, I would not be surprised to see the Super Hornets retired so as to provide a pool of spares to keep the Growlers flying.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jun 2014, 20:20

Good points 'gtx'. The US Boneyard may have some good pickins by then also.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post05 Jun 2014, 20:25

Interestingly enough, I thought this would basically be the case even before the Growler acquisition was announced, except back then I figured that half (i.e. 12 acft) the SHs would be converted into Growlers sometime around 2020 and the remainder would be retired to provide spares.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Jun 2014, 10:32

Only pages about F-35Bs on LHDs repeat PLUS the chat about buying F-35As from the 02 June 2014 Senate Hearing in Australia PDF attached from:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... b3/0000%22 (280Kb PDF)
Attachments
F-35B on LHD & F-35 buy pp10 PRN Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee_2014_06_02_2526.pdf
(199.87 KiB) Downloaded 669 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1734
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Jun 2014, 06:53

weasel1962 wrote:Not forgetting HMAS Success (II) & Sirius (330k gal & 1448k gal of aviation fuel respectively). With an F-35B internal fuel load of 2,160 gal, that's 160+670 more sorties at max fuel. Success can carry 250 tons of munitions with a 2 ton capacity crane (almost 2000 SDBs or some combination), sirius maybe more. Both vessels are probably due for replacement next decade and will provide yet another opportunity to relook at requirements.


Looks like all these talk about LHD+F-35Bs may have moved up the time table quite a bit. Australia looking to build 2 replenishment vessels soon. That could be a significant part of the white paper.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... ss-024674/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jun 2014, 21:53

Someone needs to add THERMION?
In era of tight budgets, how many aircraft carriers are enough?
08 Jun 2014 Jon Harper
"...Daly said carrier deployments typically last seven or eight months nowadays, which is sustainable (although six-month deployment would be ideal), but extending that time line would result in excessive wear and tear on the flight decks, making the surface more dangerous for aviators and crew members...."

Source: http://www.stripes.com/news/in-era-of-t ... h-1.287563


An old worn deck - probably the target wire - but dunno - only a guess: https://www.corrdefense.org/Academia%20 ... onSkid.pdf

Above PDF not available now however this old PDF has same photo:
Development of Multiple-Deployment Nonskid Coatings
Charles Tricou Applied Research Laboratory Penn State University 27 March 2007

"...Durability: Summary ...Durability Issues
• Approximately 80% of CVN flight deck nonskid coatings are replaced following each deployment. Extending the durability and functionality of nonskid coatings to last through 2 full deployments will save the Navy ~ $5M per year.

• Nonskid coatings in arrested landing areas are removed and replaced 2 or 3 times per deployment cycle."

Source: http://www.ncms.org/wp-content/NCMS_fil ... 20DNSC.pdf (PDF 2.2Mb)
Attachments
WearPatternDeckLandingArea.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2662
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post09 Jun 2014, 03:12

Mark my words -- if Thermion is adopted for CVNs, it will be trumpeted as a monumental discovery.

The Navy has a long history of being dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

200+ years of tradition...unimpeded by progress.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Jun 2014, 04:47

Long article best read at source - particularly for ideas about who flies the Oz F-35Bs from Oz LHDs. One thing not acknowledged is that a fully RAAF squadron of F-35Bs will have no troubles operating from the LHD (as long as they practice ashore/afloat the required amount of time). Flying the F-35B from a ski jump flat deck is a lot easier than a Harrier by ALL accounts.
Thoughts on the LHD and a fixed wing capability
30 May 2014 Commander David Hobbs, MBE, RN (Rtd)

"TO THE the logical mind, the most surprising element of the 2007 decision to build two Canberra class LHDs was the acceptance by the Australian Government of advice from a lobby group that fighter aircraft based in Australia, with their limited radius of action and fixed supply chains, could provide support for these ships and their ‘all-arms’ battle groups wherever they might be deployed.

The Government had already stated its intention to procure the land-based F-35A Lightning II joint strike fighter but showed no interest in the STOVL F-35B variant (pictured) being developed specifically for amphibious operations with the US Marine Corps. Protagonists of the limited ability of ‘land-locked’ air forces to project power pointed to the availability of air-to-air refuelling to extend the range of fighters but there has, as yet, been no break-through that allows them to be re-armed in flight, and crew fatigue on long sorties must be a significant factor that degrades performance.

In 2008 the Sea Power Centre studied the relative value of shore and sea-borne aircraft and noted the observed historical fact that terminal air bases associated with distant crises are seldom secured beforehand and usually lack the capability to provide immediate support at the level of operations needed for crisis response. The same document notes, on the other hand, that embarked aircraft are fully mobile, operational to their maximum level of performance on arrival in the crisis area and largely secure from ground-based interruptions and asymmetric attacks....

...The best example of rapid and effective reaction to an unexpected crisis is the Falklands conflict of 1982. Possession of the two flat-tops, Hermes and Invincible, allowed the Royal Navy to deploy a task force with naval Sea Harriers and helicopters that were able to fight on, under and over the sea surface. RAF Harriers were subsequently able to join Hermes’ air group but it needs to be pointed out that the ship’s highly skilled aircraft handlers were able to cope with their lack of experience and naval pilots were able to teach them how to operate in a maritime environment. In other words the RAF squadron was not in its primary environment and a force that relied on it for both offence and defence would have been weaker and less effective without the naval professionals who specialised in embarked flying.

A ship that was not as worked up and specialised could not have coped with the new-comers’ inexperience and the example of Illustrious in 2007 is interesting . With no Harrier squadron of her own she embarked 16 AV-8Bs of USMC squadron VMA-542 which flew 152 sorties in twelve hours. In contrast an RAF Harrier squadron embarked in Ark Royal in similar circumstances in 2010 had to carry out several days deck landing training before being considered operational and, in the ensuing exercise, flew less sorties in five days than the USMC had flown in Illustrious in two. Unlike the Marines the RAF were not able to fly at night because of their lack of carrier experience. A land-based unit that undertakes random embarkations as a secondary function will never demonstrate full operational proficiency.

Future conflict in the Pacific region may well rely on control of the sea and that control may not be possible for navies that lack effective aircraft able to operate as an integral part of a triphibious task force. An increasing number of navies have carriers and LHD-type ‘flat-tops’ and Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s May 2014 instruction to planners working on the next Defence White Paper that they are to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighters onto the LHDs to “ensure that Australia maintains a sustainable, versatile and highly capable defence force” shows a ray of hope that the full potential of these ships might be realised. Fortunately their design originated from the Spanish Juan Carlos 1 which was intended to operate STOVL fighters as well as helicopters and even retains the ‘ski-jump’ (it cost less to leave it in place than to redesign the bow to remove it) but significant modifications would be needed to embark F-35Bs on a regular basis. These would include the fitting out of air weapons magazines and handling systems together with the autonomous logistic information system, ALIS, which is at the heart of F-35 operation and maintenance and other arrangements. Aircraft handlers would need training in the operation of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft on deck and sortie generation would require the installation of briefing and flight planning facilities, simulators for pilots to ‘pre-fly’ missions and maintain training standards...."

Source: http://navalinstitute.com.au/thoughts-o ... apability/
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: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Jun 2014, 05:35

A solution for the RAAF Crab thing? OLD from 2008 - interesting nevertheless....
A SELF RELIANT DEFENCE FORCE Submitted to the [Australian] Defence [Force] White Paper Team
28 July 2008 John Bird

"Paul Dibb (The Dibb Report June 1986) emphasised that as far as is possible, we should ensure that Australia's equipment purchases are 'Force Multipliers' by which he meant that as far as possible, defence equipment should serve, in addition to its primary purpose, to support other areas of defence and so maximise its utility. We are presently on the brink of acquiring a number of equipment items that could form the basis of the best 'force multiplier' that the ADF has ever possessed, but sadly it would appear that government is unlikely to see the need to properly equip two of the platforms presently in the pipeline....

...Objections have been raised in various quarters to the proposal to acquire a fixed wing integral air capability and it would be worthwhile identifying some of these and challenging them.

*Navy will be fully committed in handling all the equipment currently owned and in the pipeline, given the constraints of personnel available.

The proposal does not consider an increase in equipment for Navy. Air Force would bring its aircraft, spares, maintenance equipment and personnel aboard Navy platforms and if one has to consider detail, Air Force could contribute to victualling and any other incidental costs for which it would be responsible should the aircraft be in service elsewhere....

...*RAAF opposition has long been a barrier to the acquisition of a shipborne (integral) air capability. Having long ago lost its control of rotary wing flying, it wishes to retain control of fixed wing aircraft, no matter where they are operated.

This proposal supports that aim and supports the one service control of the F35 and all its support facilities. It requires only that the aircraft is made available to the navy when required, to provide the support with which the air force has long been tasked. The essential difference this time is that would be a credible, an achievable support.

There is still an urgent need to develop a defence force that is, to the extent that is economically feasible, self reliant, and a fleet without integral fixed wing air support cannot, in this day and age be considered to be self reliant. The force requires to be able to respond to situations which may develop in and around our island home and in our neighbourhood, embracing at least New Zealand and our island dependencies. We must also be able to a reasonable extent, to protect our sea lines of communication, the loss of which would deny the nation the ability to resist an aggressor for more than a very limited period of time, given the crippling effects on our economy that would be suffered. Our 'Neighbourhood' should additionally encompass Papua New Guinea and our neighbour allies in the island chains to our north and in near Southeast Asia. A self reliant fleet is an essential element of any force charged with these tasks...."

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/20 ... d_John.pdf (0.27Mb)
Attachments
Oz F-35Bs On Oz LHDs Bird_John.pdf
(275.51 KiB) Downloaded 287 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: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jun 2014, 06:01

The KRAKEN AWAKES....
Would You Like an F-35 With Your Aegis?
10 Jun 2014 Zachary Keck

"It’s no coincidence that the Asian nations with Aegis combat systems are also the ones buying the F-35....

...When it comes to understanding emerging military technologies, and the geopolitical implications that flow from them, few can top the analysis of Second Line of Defense.... [AEGIS IS MY WINGMAN]

...In other words, the superior ISR capabilities of the F-35 will be used to enhance the Aegis combat system’s effectiveness. That’s because data collected by F-35s would be sent back to Aegis-equipped vessels out at sea, which would use their missile and missile defense capabilities to greater effect. This capability would be especially potent in dealing with China’s land-based missile and anti-ship missile systems, especially when combined with the F-35’s electronic and cyber capabilities.

As a result, Laird predicted that America’s Pacific allies that are part of the Aegis network would become customers of the F-35. That prediction has proven to be amazingly prescient....

...And the Hobart-class air warfare destroyers that the Royal Australian Navy is currently building will be equipped with the Aegis combat system...."

Source: http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/would-yo ... our-aegis/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post10 Jun 2014, 07:13

quicksilver wrote:Mark my words -- if Thermion is adopted for CVNs, it will be trumpeted as a monumental discovery.

The Navy has a long history of being dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

200+ years of tradition...unimpeded by progress.


The thing is, according to the Thermion webpage, the military / DOD already uses it.

As to what it uses it for, it wasn't that specific.

http://www.thermioninc.com/

I wonder what they use it for.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jun 2014, 08:03

Probably downloading this will give clues:
https://www.navalengineers.org/SiteColl ... ments/2010 Proceedings Documents/Mega Rust 2010 Proceedings/Tuesday/MR2_Lemieux.pdf (2.7Mb)

TINY URL FOR BROKEN URL ABOVE: http://tinyurl.com/mtpynsz
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: 23322
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Jun 2014, 19:36

This info posted elsewhere on this forum yet worth repeating here in light of the renewed interest in Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs.
RAAF’s ‘Plan Jericho’ to break down barriers to realising F-35′s full potential
australianaviation.com.au 30 May 2014

"...Operation Jericho. Breaking down the walls, breaking down the stovepipes of Defence is central if we are actually going to realise the full capability of fifth gen capabilities.”...

...“The F-35 doesn’t replace anything…,” LtCol Berke said. “If you look at the F-35 as a replacement to the Hornet or Super Hornet you will undermine from day one, the real capability of the airplane. It does not replace anything, it is unique, it is revolutionary….Legacy aircraft are tactical platforms and make tactical decisions and fly tactical missions that impact the overall strategic objective. I believe there is a requirement to view the F-35 as a platform that can operate across the spectrum from tactical to strategic or anywhere in between as required.” [Whilst the F-35B can land in many places including an LHD for many tactical/strategic reasons as indicated above and over and over and over and over on this forum.]

Source: http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... potential/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hythelday and 11 guests