Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

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

neptune

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1889
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 02:09

https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/n95-na ... more-23188

N95: Navy, Industry Ready To Ramp Up Amphib Construction If Administration, Congress Provide Money
By: Megan Eckstein
January 10, 2017 3:15 PM

THE PENTAGON – The Navy and industry could act quickly to ramp up amphibious warship production if the Congress and new administration support the Navy’s new call for 38 amphibs, the director of expeditionary warfare (OPNAV N95) told USNI News.
.....
“Ideally the ARG and (Marine Expeditionary unit) stay together, but the truth is the demand for the amphibious expeditionary forces is great enough that we do often operate split or disaggregated,” he said. “So having each ship capable of doing independent operations is important. And that’s again, it was one of the driving factors behind the selection of the design of LX(R) based on the LPD, so it’s got the greater aviation capability, which you need if you’re going to be out there by yourself, and probably as important or more important is the command and control capability. The LSD simply doesn’t have that; the LX(R) will.”

The Navy is still studying whether to put the Mk 41 Vertical Launching System on its LPDs or even potentially the LX(R), Owens said. The study is ongoing – each in-service LPD is slightly different and therefore the Navy has to study tradeoffs for each hull, he said, though the ships were originally designed to have the space, weight and power margins to support 14 VLS tubes. A separate study would have to take place for the LX(R) ships, since VLS tubes are not currently a requirement for the class design, but he said adding a VLS capability to amphib ships would provide long-range fire support for the ARG/MEU.

(Possible mini-NIFC-CA??)

...
Six airplanes (F-35B) are expected to deploy with the 31st MEU aboard USS Wasp (LHD-1) this fall. Wasp has already undergone some JSF upgrades and will have a few more modifications made before the ship transits to its new homeport in Japan early this year. “We can operate the aircraft (on Wasp today); the key is to be able to exploit what the aircraft can do. And so we will need upgrades for video data link and the internal ship’s networks and so forth to be able to handle the information that the aircraft can bring back and get it to the decision-makers on the ship,” he said.

(Lessons learned from DT-III on LHA-6 America??)

USS Essex (LHD-2) is undergoing JSF modifications now and will be the first to receive them all at once. Wasp got JSF improvements early on and the Marines have learned additional lessons since then that will necessitate additional modifications.

USS America (LHA-6) was built with some features to support JSF and had others added during its first maintenance period. Owens said N95 and other organizations will be watching the first MEU deployment closely to inform any potential additional modifications that would help ships better employ the fifth-generation F-35B.

:)
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 567
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 02:42

neptune wrote:
popcorn wrote:..

The future Bougainville (LHA-8) will be the third America-class ship and the first Flight 1 design that reintroduces a well deck for surface connector operations.... will strike a middle ground, maintaining that emphasis on aviation while adding back a small well through reductions in medical and other spaces..


...it's called a "mini-dock" but it should be left out of the America design and added to additional LX-R boats coming along with the new LHAs... those extra LX-Rs could be added to the ESG etc.
:)


Don`t know yet (I don`t think anyone does) what the LX-R well decks will be for certain, but assuming (a very good assumption) it carries forward the same basic LPD layout,they (the LX-R) will already have exactly that anyway. As I understood it, the LH8 + ships copied the smaller 2 LCAC size deck as the LPD 17/LSD 49 classes have. (as opposed to 3 LCACs for the Wasp Class LPD or 4 LCACs for the LSD 42 class )

The issues they had with the LPH plus LSD (what you seem to propose) was time lost transferring personnel/equipment from the LPH to get it onto the LSD for surface deployment. But the Marines are a bit more Aviation/Infantry focused than the heavier units during Beirut times . They like their V-22/CH-53s a lot - strike deep, get off the beach. (nothing good happens on the beaches except getting f*** off them and inland as fast as you can.)

FWIW
BP
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1889
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 04:35

blindpilot wrote:[..

Don`t know yet (I don`t think anyone does) what the LX-R well decks will be for certain, but assuming (a very good assumption) it carries forward the same basic LPD layout,they (the LX-R) will already have exactly that anyway. As I understood it, the LH8 + ships copied the smaller 2 LCAC size deck as the LPD 17/LSD 49 classes have. (as opposed to 3 LCACs for the Wasp Class LPD or 4 LCACs for the LSD 42 class )

The issues they had with the LPH plus LSD (what you seem to propose) was time lost transferring personnel/equipment from the LPH to get it onto the LSD for surface deployment. But the Marines are a bit more Aviation/Infantry focused than the heavier units during Beirut times . They like their V-22/CH-53s a lot - strike deep, get off the beach. (nothing good happens on the beaches except getting f*** off them and inland as fast as you can.) FWIW BP


BP,

From what I have recently read, the LXR (LPD hull size) is indeed to expand the internal well decks to the four LCAC capacity. This would alleviate the need for transfer to the LHA/D of any of the heavy mechanized equipment and/ or the logistical support materials. Air transport of the light vehicles and light artillery (777) could be directly from the LXR/PD as required. To me, this makes my case for "NO WELL DECKS" on the LHAs; only add more LXRs as required.

Now by adding the VLS to the LXR/PD hulls, the F-35B can provide the ISR info for the C2 on each ship for their SM-2/3/6 air support/ defense battery for a mini-NIFC-CA.

:)
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3477
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 08:53

neptune wrote:
blindpilot wrote:[..

Don`t know yet (I don`t think anyone does) what the LX-R well decks will be for certain, but assuming (a very good assumption) it carries forward the same basic LPD layout,they (the LX-R) will already have exactly that anyway. As I understood it, the LH8 + ships copied the smaller 2 LCAC size deck as the LPD 17/LSD 49 classes have. (as opposed to 3 LCACs for the Wasp Class LPD or 4 LCACs for the LSD 42 class )

The issues they had with the LPH plus LSD (what you seem to propose) was time lost transferring personnel/equipment from the LPH to get it onto the LSD for surface deployment. But the Marines are a bit more Aviation/Infantry focused than the heavier units during Beirut times . They like their V-22/CH-53s a lot - strike deep, get off the beach. (nothing good happens on the beaches except getting f*** off them and inland as fast as you can.) FWIW BP


BP,

From what I have recently read, the LXR (LPD hull size) is indeed to expand the internal well decks to the four LCAC capacity. This would alleviate the need for transfer to the LHA/D of any of the heavy mechanized equipment and/ or the logistical support materials. Air transport of the light vehicles and light artillery (777) could be directly from the LXR/PD as required. To me, this makes my case for "NO WELL DECKS" on the LHAs; only add more LXRs as required.

Now by adding the VLS to the LXR/PD hulls, the F-35B can provide the ISR info for the C2 on each ship for their SM-2/3/6 air support/ defense battery for a mini-NIFC-CA.

:)


Big improvement for our Amphibious Forces. Yet, 20 F-35B's on something like the USS America is totally inadequate. What they need is something that could support a much larger AirWing. Yet, still be cost effective.....

Honestly, been toying around with an idea to convert a Triple E Container Ship to an Amphibious Aircraft Carrier!

What I suggest is to have Hyundai build the Hull of a Triple E up to the Vehicle Deck. Then the ship would be sent to the US to be completed. The ship has a good speed (~25 knots) and with it's large size could carry vast stores. Including Fuel, Weapons, and Supplies. The size also allows two hanger decks. The first would be a smaller Vehicle Deck with ramps that could load/unload equipment. These could also connect at sea with the Afloat Forward Staging Bases (AFSB) and ships like the new Mobile Landing Platforms (MLP)! The second deck would be a traditional Hanger Deck to support anything from F-35B's to V-22's to CH-53K's and everything in between.

Honestly, I've read the recent reports stating the USMC needs large conventional Aircraft Carriers that could operate types like the Super Hornet. Yet, I don't see such a Carrier as viable let alone "affordable".

Here's a "very rough" early concept which is far from complete.....Yet, I would love to hear any suggestion and/or comments?


AHA - 8 Aircraft Carrier.png
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6180
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 17:31

"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 669
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 01:41

neptune wrote:Now by adding the VLS to the LXR/PD hulls, the F-35B can provide the ISR info for the C2 on each ship for their SM-2/3/6 air support/ defense battery for a mini-NIFC-CA.

:)


Unlikely they would ever fit such missiles on an amphib. The space is probably for ESSM for self-defense, and they wouldn't have the radars to use SM-2/6 anyway (forget SM-3). And realistically, if you think something as high-value as an LPD needs that much self-defense capability, then you're probably never going to send it alone into such a threat.

Space for 16 Mk.41 VLS was already build into the San Antonio for what I can recall, but never installed.

They're probably thinking of situations like we've seen in Yemen where ships have to transit through potentially dangerous areas where threats can pop up. Probably not for landing situations.

Yet, 20 F-35B's on something like the USS America is totally inadequate. What they need is something that could support a much larger AirWing


Why?
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 669
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 01:44

SpudmanWP wrote:Containership/OilTanker conversion plans are nothing new.


Right. The limiting factor is not that hulls of that size are unavailable. It's probably something else which has so far prevented navies from converting them to full-time military use.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6238
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 01:46

arian wrote:
neptune wrote:
Yet, 20 F-35B's on something like the USS America is totally inadequate. What they need is something that could support a much larger AirWing


Why?

Here we go around the Mulberry bush...
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 669
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 01:51

popcorn wrote:Here we go around the Mulberry bush...


I'm not going to read 76 previous pages to find the answer.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 17268
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 01:55

:mrgreen: This is my fav thread... what is the question? :devil:
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://tinyurl.com/nluewur
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3477
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 01:58

SpudmanWP wrote:Containership/OilTanker conversion plans are nothing new.

Image

http://web.mit.edu/13a/www/DsgnSymp/ITS ... ersion.pdf

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle ... tFinal.pdf


Never said Conversions of Commercial Ships for Military Applications was anything new. Just looking at possible solutions for the USMC/USN to provide additional Air Support for Amphibious Forces. Especially, ones that won't break the bank!

Also, while a conversion like the one posted above is simple and cost effective. As true conversion is far more versatile while still be far cheaper than a large conventional Aircraft Carrier. Which, is totally unaffordable even for the USN at this stage.....

Regardless, my whole point was to foster a debate and discuss possible solutions???
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 669
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 02:08

Corsair1963 wrote:Also, while a conversion like the one posted above is simple and cost effective. As true conversion is far more versatile while still be far cheaper than a large conventional Aircraft Carrier. Which, is totally unaffordable even for the USN at this stage.....

Regardless, my whole point was to foster a debate and discuss possible solutions???


You're probably right, but there's also probably a good reason why it hasn't happened. For example, just thinking out loud, those mega container ships are designed for very small crews of a dozen people. An amphib flat-top would need space for several thousand people. The design may simply not be optimized to be converted to other uses, and by the time you're done doing a proper conversion, you may well be right back to the existing flat-top design as being better optimized.

It's probably not as simple as taking an existing hull shape and putting a new superstructure on it. If it were, it probably would have been done (the USN did use to do that frequently prior to WW2, so it's not out of lack of imagination or trying)
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3477
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 02:09

arian wrote:
neptune wrote:
Unlikely they would ever fit such missiles on an amphib. The space is probably for ESSM for self-defense, and they wouldn't have the radars to use SM-2/6 anyway (forget SM-3). And realistically, if you think something as high-value as an LPD needs that much self-defense capability, then you're probably never going to send it alone into such a threat.

Space for 16 Mk.41 VLS was already build into the San Antonio for what I can recall, but never installed.


Yes, the San Antonio Class was design with space for the MK 41 VLS. Yet, those cells could carry any weapons design to operate from them. As other ships (i.e. Aegis Destroyers, Cruisers, etc.) would provide the targeting data. All the Amphibious Ships are doing is providing additional weapons for the Amphibious Force.


Yet, 20 F-35B's on something like the USS America is totally inadequate. What they need is something that could support a much larger AirWing


Why?


You believe just 6-20 F-35B's are enough support for an entire MEU and the supporting ships??? (really)
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 669
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 02:19

Corsair1963 wrote:You believe just 6-20 F-35B's are enough support for an entire MEU and the supporting ships??? (really)


I don't know how MEUs are organized and what number of ships deliver them, but an MEU consists of 2,200 personnel, many if not most may be support personnel. So my initial intuition is that against the sort of threat where you would deploy a single MEU, then 6-20 F-15Bs are probably more than enough.

If the threat is so much greater, you're probably not deploying a single MEU against that threat, but either multiple ones or you send in USN carriers.

These things are designed to support an MEU, not to go and fight wars on their own. After all an MEU also has very few tanks, artillery or heavy weaponry so probably it's not going to fight against the Republican Guards on its own.

But we'd have to understand the reasoning behind the USMC's choices, not to assume things.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2507
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 03:06

I thought the 2,200 MEU was the expeditionary force.

The support personnel don't count towards that?
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], steve2267 and 7 guests