Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

[neptune]

Yap!, Yap!, Yap!, if we had this and if we had that! LHA-6 (7,8&9 soon) America has the keel laid and hanging iron. 2013 (4 years for those that can't count) it hits the water and loads weapons and A/C with 844ft. and 106 ft. beam. 2 LM-2500 gas turbines for push and 20+ "B-Light" with assorted Ospreys, Sea Stallions, Venoms and Vipers. The Brits are fielding (maybe) the QE 3&4 919ft. and 128ft. beam. with 40+ "B-Light" or (not and) Chinooks (maybe). If the Brits go to "C-Light", their ski-jumps will go to electric cats, like the Ford CVN. LHA-6 America "IS" an escort carrier. You are not gonna' do air superiority with a "B-Light" unless you are talking about helos and or recc. A/C (slow movers). How many Harriers have modern A/S kills (1982 and Falklands don't count in 2009)? The grunts are gonna insist on CAS, and hanging bombs and rockets off hardpoints will "slightly??" affect LO and A/S. Who cares about LO if you are praying for more 25mm into the bad-guys on the other side. Rockets, bullets and bombs are what CAS is all about and slower is better. A bennie spinner or a HOG is preferred because they can stick around longer, but a "fast mover" will do in a pinch. Get real!, "B-Light" is CAS regardless of what the boys in blue and the canoe club are preaching to the politicos. LHA is how they are going to get there and between "B-Light", Ospreys and snakes our 'gyrenes are going to continue to be "THE" most awesome strike force in this world. If the canoe club pushes L/M to make AEGIS x + s band, it could be ready in time for America and the Ford. Ospreys could carry a mini-mp-rtip (Global Hawk) and arrange Hell Fire or Hell Fire II enemas for all the bad guys. Gig-em Marines.

[spazsinbad]

Those pesky Chinoise - don't they know that 'ramps' are bad? sarcasm alert

Ski Ramp Satellite and Images From Yanliang Thursday, August 13, 2009

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... -from.html

"New satellite images, Bing not Google interesting enough (search Yanliang, choose Aerial, and zoom in on the airport), from the Xian-Yanliang test facility shows what appears to be a ski jump at the end of a short runway. This new satellite imagery matches some recent photos that have recently popped up of a Ski Jump claimed to be at the same facility.

The geography of the ski jump at Yanliang is odd. The airport there is nearly 400 miles from the coast and is 1500 ft above sea level. It could be weather conditions, specifically wind, is favorable for producing the desired effect of aircraft carrier operations.

Regardless, the ski jump is yet another sign that China continues to examine technologies for the development of an aircraft carrier."

For more pics and sat overheads go here: http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/9-4501.aspx

[bjr1028]

Those pesky Chinoise - don't they know that 'ramps' are bad? sarcasm alert x

They're going to use Russian tech. Like they Indians, they wouldn't use STOBAR because its some super great solution, they'd use it because they don't have acceptable CATOBAR or STOVL technology. STOBAR is the worst of both worlds. The Russian SU-33s can't take off at anywhere near full load and the deck arrangement cuts the number of airframes that would be carried if it had cats in roughly half.

[spazsinbad]

bjr, you like to mix up things a bit IMHO. Probably if a small carrier had small aircraft to operate things would not be so bad (Harriers and 'through deck cruisers'). However operating LARGE aircraft on a small carrier has no advantages at all as you say. Does not mean the concepts are bad, just that in the instance you refer, the implementation of a mixture of components is not good. STOVL and ski jumps work, runny landings will work on new RN CVFs. If all else fails they'll do quick vertical landings.

[geogen]

Spaz, thanks for KPP.gif.

As for differences in takeoff performances whether ski-jump or not, it is apparently a nominal 100' difference in itself: 450' vs 550'. Nothing too remarkable? Now if the combat radius was improved under the same combat load, by say even 25-50 miles... then we'd be onto something?

But the apparent advertised data of both USMC and RN combat radius ranges being the same 450nm, does not really add much new material to this debate unfortunately - other than the 450nm range data perhaps being a surprise to the short side??

[geogen]

neptune, thanks for interesting post.

However, even an F-35B off an LHA/LHD, armed with JSOW-ER would make a more superior anti-maritime and stand-off strike platform than Harrier could have ever been tasked.

It could be far more air-dominant than the mighty Harrier in both relative and absolute performance terms.

This is just discussing the mere performance capabilities.

[spazsinbad]

geogen, to small navies a 100 foot difference in takeoff performance - with ski jump - is significant. Italy, Spain and perhaps Australia or even India (obviously RN but they will have HUGE ships maybe) will be only able to afford small flat decks for the time being. Same small flat deck ships can be used for cross decking the HALLOWED USMC STOVLies.

[Corsair1963]

neptune, thanks for interesting post.

However, even an F-35B off an LHA/LHD, armed with JSOW-ER would make a more superior anti-maritime and stand-off strike platform than Harrier could have ever been tasked.

It could be far more air-dominant than the mighty Harrier in both relative and absolute performance terms.

This is just discussing the mere performance capabilities.

The F-35 is going to be a very dangerous Anti-Surface Platform. Especially, when you combined it with two internally carried NSM/JSM Anti-Ship/Land Attack Missiles. Which, are Stealthy just like the Lightning.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile

[spazsinbad]

Excerpts from: The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (1Mb PDF)

JSF Air Vehicle Description
Unique features of the CV variant include a wing with approximately 35% greater area than that on the other two variants, larger tail surfaces, and ailerons on the trailing edges of the wings. These features were added to improve the slow-speed performance and flying qualities required for carrier landings. Additionally, landing gear and other main structural components have been strengthened to withstand shipboard launch and recovery. A launch bar and arresting hook are incorporated to allow catapult takeoff and arrested landings.

AIRCRAFT LAUNCH AND RECOVERY
The JSF aircraft have been sized to take full advantage of the aircraft launch and recovery equipment available on the ships of interest. For example, the CV variant is designed to withstand the tow loads imposed by the C-13 Mod I and Mod 2 catapults, as well as the deceleration loads of the Mk-7 Mod 3 arresting gear. If future launch and recovery systems offer substantially different loading profiles than those factored into the design, a substantial impact to launch performance (i.e., wind-overdeck requirements) and/or service life could result.

Flying Qualities and Performance
Shipboard operations introduce a host of environmental factors not present ashore, and many of these factors have a significant impact on the required performance of the aircraft and its associated flying qualities.

CV VARIANT APPROACH SPEED
A safe carrier landing requires the aircraft to be capable of flying slowly enough to be recovered within the capacities of the arresting gear, while not imposing an unacceptably high requirement on the ship to generate wind-over-deck. This capability of a slow approach speed cannot come at the expense of unsatisfactory flying qualities."

[spazsinbad]

QDR Chatter High--Naval And Air Forces to Become More Expeditionary Friday, August 21, 2009

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... es_21.html

"News here of chatter flowing out of the QDR process indicating a heavier reliance on the expeditionary nature of naval and air forces. Don't know how much trust to put into the reports, but it seems to make sense given the little I know of the team at OSD (P) and their policy inclinations, and the security challenges that face them.

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4245844&c=AME&s=TOP

It also seems to point back to something I said in this post about the Fighter-Attack shortfall, and that was advocating a thorough analytical debate within the department about the mix of land and sea-based fighter attack capability. If the department is looking to hedge by beefing up the "expeditionary" portions of naval and air forces, then clearly paying for capability twice doesn't make sense. The "expeditionary" functions of the Air Force that will be in high demand are its tankers, logistics, and C4I--not its fighter attack forces. Like Staples says, "We (the Navy) got that"."

[Corsair1963]

QDR Chatter High--Naval And Air Forces to Become More Expeditionary Friday, August 21, 2009

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... es_21.html

"News here of chatter flowing out of the QDR process indicating a heavier reliance on the expeditionary nature of naval and air forces. Don't know how much trust to put into the reports, but it seems to make sense given the little I know of the team at OSD (P) and their policy inclinations, and the security challenges that face them.

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4245844&c=AME&s=TOP

It also seems to point back to something I said in this post about the Fighter-Attack shortfall, and that was advocating a thorough analytical debate within the department about the mix of land and sea-based fighter attack capability. If the department is looking to hedge by beefing up the "expeditionary" portions of naval and air forces, then clearly paying for capability twice doesn't make sense. The "expeditionary" functions of the Air Force that will be in high demand are its tankers, logistics, and C4I--not its fighter attack forces. Like Staples says, "We (the Navy) got that"."

See we may see F-35B's is USAF Service yet.......

[spazsinbad]

ONE RN CVF down with perhaps another to follow (things never improve in GB - they only get worse):

"The Sunday Times October 25, 2009
Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle by Michael Smith
The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.
The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.
The move is a blow to the navy’s prestige and has come on the heels of Gordon Brown’s announcement last month that he was axing one of the navy’s four Trident nuclear deterrent submarines.
It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.
The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit, leaving open the possibility that it might have to borrow one from the French navy. In a meeting with Brown last year, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had suggested that refits of French and British aircraft carriers should be co-ordinated.
The decision to have only one new aircraft carrier will cut the number of JSFs to be flown by RAF squadrons from 138 to about 50, saving £7.6 billion. At current prices, the aircraft will cost close to £90m each, but this could rise to more than £100m.
Using the Prince of Wales as a commando ship will save a further £600m, the amount that would have been needed to replace the amphibious landing ship Ocean, which is due to go out of service in 2018.
The decision to cut the number of JSF aircraft has been agreed by senior navy and air force commanders in discussions preparing for the strategic defence review.
Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to conducting a strategic defence review after the general election, which must be held by the late spring.
A senior Royal Navy officer said: “We always knew that the real cost of the carrier project is the JSF fleet to go on them. It would cost us at least £12 billion if we bought all the aircraft we originally asked for. We are waking up to the fact that all those planes are unaffordable. More than half of the £5 billion contracts to build the two new carriers have been contracted, so it is too late to get out of building the ships. This way at least we are covered when Ocean goes out of service.”
Since both aircraft carriers will still be built, there are unlikely to be job losses at the Rosyth ship yards, close to Brown’s constituency. The JSF aircraft are being built in Fort Worth, Texas, with the involvement of BAE Systems.
The RAF, which had been due to replace its Tornado aircraft with the JSF, will now equip all its frontline squadrons with Eurofighter aircraft instead.
The Conservatives said any decision to axe a carrier would be “absolutely unacceptable” and typical of the government’s “chaotic, inconsistent and incompetent defence procurement policy”.
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the move exposed the government’s claim that it wanted a completely independent strategic defence review. “The government is saying it is fully committed to the carriers while at the same time forcing them to be cut,” he said.
“It is confusing for the navy, it is confusing for industry and it is completely inconsistent with the whole concept of running an independent defence review.”
The Ministry of Defence said Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, remained 100% committed to the carriers but “financial circumstances mean some difficult decisions will have to be taken to prioritise our forces’ efforts in Afghanistan”.
The Royal Navy currently has three smaller 20,600-ton carriers: Illustrious, Ark Royal and Invincible. Illustrious is on a visit to Liverpool. Invincible has already been mothballed."

[geogen]

Unfortunate, but unfortunately expected for ahwile now by some. It's the reality and will most likely require ugrent overall strategic UK doctrine revamping to meet this emerging scenario.

And No, Spazsinbad... I'm no longer proposing the Leasing of USS Enterprise to GB to offset the RN

But perhaps UK can take the moment finally to step back, re-evaluate some requirements, and exploit the opportunity (not a setback) to modernize planning/doctrine to meet forward-looking deterrence needs and exercise a more prudent, calculated and effect-maximizing plan? Respects to the Queen..

[Corsair1963]

Sorry, that article hardly makes sense! First, only one Carrier would likely be available at a given time. So, its not like the RN would have to field two Carrrier Air Wings if it choose not to do so. Also, the second Carrier is so far off. It hardly needs to make a decision anytime soon.........


It also makes a reference to the F-35 replacing the Tornado's? Which, is odd considering the current proposed buy of F-35B's. Is planned as a replacement for Harriers in RAF/RN Service. (i.e. Joint Harrier Force) Not as a replacement for RAF Tornado's!

Talk about an article laced with inconsistency!


Just more politics..........

[bjr1028]

If Brown stays in the office how much longer will the UK's armed forces still exists. The cuts since he became PM have been massive.