Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24784
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Jun 2014, 21:34

Another balltearer from SLDinfo:
The USS America: From Niche to Sledgehammer
15 Jun 2014 Robbin Laird

"The discussions of the USS America, although few and far between, have really focused on one of two issues:

What it does not have, namely a well deck

Or that it is an aircraft carrier at 50,000 plus tons and competes with the large deck carrier and makes it obsolete.

While both subjects deserve their place, what gets lost in the shuffle is the crucial issue of what exactly is the USS America?, it is clear that the USS America is something radically new: it is a 21st century assault ship.

It is part of the overall process of innovation, and not some well-deck less aberration.

While one analyst referred to the USS America as providing a “niche” capability, in reality it is a niche, which provides a sledgehammer for the fleet....

...The ship has three synergistic decks, which work together to support flight deck operations.

There is space to maintain and sustain the Osprey and the other aviation assets, and prepares for the coming of the F-35B as the ISR C2 asset taking the assault force to another level of capability.

In the interview to be published soon with Captain Hall, the skipper underscores the importance of the workflow generated by the three-deck synergy. And although a modest man, certainly takes pride in discussing the operational impact the ship will have on the fleet.

We have argued from the beginning of the operation of Second Line of Defense, that no platform fights alone.

The impact of the USS America will come from its impact on the fleet and its ability to work with the fleet....

...And with regard to the large deck carrier, the USS America is not designed primarily as a fast jet strike carrier.

It certainly can add to the punch with the capability to carry up to 24 F-35Bs, but will rarely do that.

But the USN-USMC team is looking at ways to operate 16 F-35Bs with 4 Ospreys for refueling and resupply to supported distributed STOVL operations.

The large deck carriers will need to adjust to these new capabilities, but it is hard to see how adding capability to the fleet in a time of reduced numbers of platforms is a negative...."

VIDEO: http://vimeo.com/98171897#at=0

Graphic: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... lide12.jpg

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-uss-america- ... dgehammer/
Attachments
Slide12.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

thepointblank

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 328
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 11:17
  • Location: The True North Strong and Free

Unread post18 Jun 2014, 00:23

I've always envisioned USS America and USS Tripoli to be more of amphibious force flagships, handling the command duties in the event of an amphibious assault, and providing aircraft maintenance and support for the entire amphibious force task group. I would imagine both ships will replace USS Blue Ridge and USS Mount Whitney as both ships are starting to get long in the tooth.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24784
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Jun 2014, 01:01

A curious conclusion if you have read the article. Have you read anything about the 'new' USMC - NOT the SECOND LAND ARMEE?
Expeditionary Force
21 04 Mar 2014

http://www.scribd.com/document_download ... ension=pdf (3Mb)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Blue_Ridge_(LCC-19)
&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mount_Whitney_(LCC-20)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post18 Jun 2014, 02:50

IIRC one of the lessons learned from BA2012 is that Command and Control is most effective when it s not tied to any one platform or location.,At different stages during the exercixe C2 responsibility shifted from the CSG to the Gator fleet to the Marine force on the ground. The tech today is a far cry from what was available when the USS Blue Ridge her sister were conceived.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6907
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Jun 2014, 05:34

thepointblank wrote:I've always envisioned USS America and USS Tripoli to be more of amphibious force flagships, handling the command duties in the event of an amphibious assault, and providing aircraft maintenance and support for the entire amphibious force task group. I would imagine both ships will replace USS Blue Ridge and USS Mount Whitney as both ships are starting to get long in the tooth.



Makes a lot of sense...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24784
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Jun 2014, 01:50

LHD and STOVL—An engineer’s view
20 Jun 2014 Steve George

"As a military aircraft engineer, I’ve been associated with STOVL aircraft operations for around 30 years, and have worked on the F-35 program. So I’ve followed the current discussions around potential use of F-35B from the Canberra-class LHDs with interest.

In my view, it’s remarkable how much the debate focuses on the problems that the aircraft would face in operating from those ships rather than the potential benefits to be gained. Assertions abound about the ‘limited’ nature of F-35B operations from an LHD, and the ‘severe challenges’ involved in generating a militarily ‘decisive impact’ from ‘small’ platforms. And yet for 30 years or more the UK and US (using AV-8Bs and Sea Harriers) have delivered significant operational effect from similar platforms. Clearly, STOVL at sea can work. So I’d like to offer a few observations that might assist and inform the debate.

For STOVL aircraft, the Canberra class isn’t a ‘small’ ship. They’re actually much larger than the RAN’s last carrier, HMAS Melbourne, and significantly bigger than the UK’s highly effective Invincible class. Their flight decks are nearly as big as Wasp class LHDs decks, for which the F-35B was designed. Indeed, the Canberra class actually have more suitable decks for F-35B operations; their ski jumps would deliver significantly improved launch payloads and safer launches. The point here is that STOVL is a truly disruptive technology. It allows LHD-sized vessels to deliver a level of maritime aviation capability previously limited to large conventional carriers....

...The amount of air capability an LHD deck could generate from five to 10 F-35Bs, and the length of time that could be sustained, would startle anyone who hasn’t done ‘STOVL at sea’. Coupling high-sortie rates with the ship’s ability to minimise distance to the target is the essence of naval aviation: proximity equals capability.

In my experience, the key challenge in delivering a viable maritime aviation capability wouldn’t be the equipment, but in re-generating the required naval-aviation expertise. Fortunately, Australia has a strong naval-aviation heritage, and a number of ex-RAN aviators who were (not that long ago) involved in the UK’s Sea Harrier operations. In my view, the Australian Government should assemble some of that priceless experience and put it to work assessing the F-35B/LHD option. Regenerating a fixed-wing naval-aviation capability would be the key to exploiting the F-35B at sea—and I have no doubt the RAN would be equal to the challenge."
&
"Steve George was an air engineer officer in the Royal Navy for 28 years, and served in HMS Invincible during the 1982 Falklands operation. During his career, he was closely involved with the Sea Harrier, and also with joint RN/RAF Harrier operations. Retiring from the RN as a Commander, he joined the JSF programme to work on F-35B ship suitability. He is now an engineering consultant."

Source: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/lhd-an ... eers-view/
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: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post20 Jun 2014, 12:49

I'm really digging the Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier. I really wish the USS America used the same design instead of what they went with.

Imagine what us Americans can fit on board with a carrier of that size.

Sadly the America Class feels small in comparison to the Queen Elizabeth Class.

The fact that the America Class can fit 40 Aircraft in such a small carrier, yet the QE Class will normally be able to go up to 40, with an absolute max of 50. It makes me wonder what are they doing with all that space.

I know the purpose of the America Class is different, but =(
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24784
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Jun 2014, 17:18

I guess you are serious. Perhaps if you read up on the AMERICA LHA class some of your misgivings will be answered.
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: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post20 Jun 2014, 19:27

spazsinbad wrote:I guess you are serious. Perhaps if you read up on the AMERICA LHA class some of your misgivings will be answered.


It's not so much the functionality as the limitations based on the size and layout.

The America Class LHA "feels" small and less capable.

That being said, I know the America Class has a different goal, so I understand why they went the route they went.

But what I like and think is good for the US is obviously different from what the USMC / USN wants with their ships.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1299
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post20 Jun 2014, 20:02

KamenRiderBlade wrote:I'm really digging the Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier. I really wish the USS America used the same design instead of what they went with.

Imagine what us Americans can fit on board with a carrier of that size.

Sadly the America Class feels small in comparison to the Queen Elizabeth Class.
...


US LHD ships are designed to be Panamax and that literally defines their size at what it is today. A ship any bigger will not be Panamax (technically 1050ft by 115 ft by 41 ft draft with some margin for space between walls of the locks.) That is exactly why the ships are less than 900 feet long by exactly 106 feet by less than 30 feet draft. They are as large as they can be and still manage Panama.

Now when Post Panamax happens ... ?2015 ish?? draft will still be 40 feet or so, which will limit tonnage but dimensions can be as much as 1,400 feet by 180 feet. Still too small for Super Carrier (width and draft - ie. displacement- note water line beam of CVN is only 135 ft but when you lower the lock waters the taper to the deck has to clear) HMS QE Class is beam 130 ft waterline to 240 ft deck beam and 36 ft draft at 65,000 tonnes

But Post Panamx could allow US Navy to have LHD/A's at 1100 feet by 175 feet Of interest here, MLP/AFSB hulls are 164 feet beam and displace up to 75,000 plus tonnes at less than 30 feet draft. Ships like USNS Lewis B Puller will be "Post Panamax" capable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLP-3#medi ... RQHZNa.jpg
AFSB Puller.jpg
AFSB L B Puller


There are reasons for ship sizes in the US Navy. This is one example.
Aviation AFSB.jpg
MLP-AFSB Aviation ship

BP
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1299
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post20 Jun 2014, 20:32

Note on MLP/AFSB ships.

These are NOT warships. They are intended for Operations "From the Sea." They can not "turn" any type of sortie generation at all. But if gathered "out of range" as an Afloat Forward Sea Base they can carry aircraft much like the Atlantic Conveyor was supposed to be used in the Falkland Islands War. BUT NOTE !!! the Atlantic Conveyor got a shade too close to the action... But this is a part of the Marine Maritime focused plans. Could be used by others ... Australia? .. and let the LHD's/ forward ground base be the battle space "lilly pads." They are also large Post Panamax ships.

Sortie generation is a whole different ball game.. ie. see CVN's and the difference between Spanish LHD and Aussie LHD.

BP
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post20 Jun 2014, 22:14

The other issue I have is the Panamax requirement really that important to have?

Our US carriers aren't anywhere near Panamax standards.

Do the marines really need Panamax standards so to speak?
Offline

newmanfrigan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2013, 05:14
  • Location: Kansas City, MO

Unread post20 Jun 2014, 23:12

KamenRiderBlade wrote:The other issue I have is the Panamax requirement really that important to have?

Our US carriers aren't anywhere near Panamax standards.

Do the marines really need Panamax standards so to speak?


The Marines have historically been the head of the spear in operations in Central and South America, so they probably have some pretty sound thinking behind keeping to the standard...
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post20 Jun 2014, 23:46

newmanfrigan wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:The other issue I have is the Panamax requirement really that important to have?

Our US carriers aren't anywhere near Panamax standards.

Do the marines really need Panamax standards so to speak?


The Marines have historically been the head of the spear in operations in Central and South America, so they probably have some pretty sound thinking behind keeping to the standard...


Fair enough.

I still love the QE Class.

That symmetry, the solid lines and layout

=D

The rest of the EU needs to modernize and jump on board the QE class as their defacto design.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1299
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post21 Jun 2014, 02:23

KamenRiderBlade wrote:
... Our US carriers aren't anywhere near Panamax standards. ...



Uh yeah ... BUT CVNs sail at 35 plus mph in rough seas for a range of ... well a range of ... umm .. ? ...25 years?

And LHDs ... uh ... don't :) They sort of need to be closer to where they are going ... before the rowers arms get tired. :D

BP

Interesting note: A CVN can almost get from Norfolk VA to Hawaii around South America faster than the LHD/A can through the Panama canal, and can get to Australia much (days) faster. (and at 9500 nm range the LHD/A will have to hit the tanker) Super Carriers ARE FAST !!! (if they don't have to wait on their stupid high speed cruiser/destroyer escorts or can pick up new ones relayed on the run).
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests