Page 15 of 83

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2009, 06:13
by dport
spazsinbad wrote:A recent prize winning essay for 'Proceedings' has this to say FWIW: ... RY_ID=1838

Extract from "Buy Fords, Not Ferraris" by Commander Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy

"Another critical component of the surge force will be the Expeditionary Strike Groups and their light amphibious carriers. Long considered to be the central core of the amphibious force, these highly capable aircraft carriers can serve in new roles within surge operations. Assuming one is in dry-dock for maintenance, a force of ten LHAs can provide nine small flattops for surge operations. Five of them will go to sea with their embarked Marine Expeditionary Units serving as their primary strike assets (again, the assumption would be that two of the MEUs would either be deploying or returning from deployment at any given time) while the remaining available LHAs deploy with each of their decks and hangars populated by two squadrons of STOVL Joint Strike Fighters.

The four LPDs and four LSDs that would have normally deployed with the Joint Strike Fighter-configured LHAs can be allocated to provide such maritime lift as necessary to carry out the Marine Corps' mission. Such a configuration would provide the naval services with a wider, distributed, and more survivable strike capability and joint forcible entry options in an increasingly anti-access environment. The new LHA(R) America-class ships, lacking a well-deck, would seem particularly suited for this STOVL strike carrier role."

I read the article when it came out. He made some good points. Other points were woefully lacking. Just one mid-grade officer's opinion is all it really is.

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2009, 08:25
by spazsinbad
Some 2001 thinking from UK: (PDF made from a series of web pages at) ... ntent;col1

Future Carrier Aviation Options: A British Perspective Naval War College Review, Summer, 2001 by David J. Jordan

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2009, 00:19
by spazsinbad
"Harrier Carrier" picture thread here: [h/t to 'New Wars' "correspondent" D. E. Reddick - ... /#comments] ... p?t=146196

Other carrier types: ... p?t=144822

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2009, 13:39
by spazsinbad
The Bedford Array will enable Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landings SRVL. Explained at various places: ... ces/28.htm "Warship Technology Jan 2009"
specifically ... ces/28.htm
& ... ces/29.htm

Janes Defence Weekly 04 March 2009: (graphic from URL below) ... v=sub&p=28
& ... v=sub&p=29

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2009, 02:08
by spazsinbad
From the 'Janes Defence Weekly' article above:
[EDIT] Another easier to access story here: ... uture.aspx

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2009, 12:16
by spazsinbad
Vertical Landing in Simulator (burn a hole in the deck) for JSF-B: 'Joker, Joker' (19Mb .FLV video)

"Lockheed Martin shows off the F-35 flight simulator to a group of trade press reporters visiting the factory in Fort Worth, Texas on July 28 2009."

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2009, 22:45
by dragorv
Nice video! I've always enjoyed seeing those simulations.

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 03:30
by spazsinbad
US Marines eye UK JSF shipborne technique DATE:15/06/07 SOURCE:Flight International ... nique.html

"A shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique being developed by the UK for the Lockheed Martin F-35B is being eyed by the US Marine Corps as a way to facilitate operation of short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighters from US Navy aircraft carriers.
The F-35B is scheduled to replace USMC Boeing F/A-18s and concerns have arisen that integration of the STOVL JSF with conventional US Navy fighters will disrupt carrier landing operations.
The F-35B lacks a hook and will have to approach the ship, hover and land vertically, potentially slowing deck operations.
The rolling vertical landing technique is being developed to increase the F-35B's bringback payload when operating from the UK's planned CVF large-deck carriers.
An SRVL approach exploits the ability of the STOVL JSF to use vectored thrust to slow the aircraft while retaining the benefit of wingborne lift.
For the USMC, the technique would allow a conventional approach to a short landing on the carrier and could ease integration of the F-35B with US Navy F/A-18E/Fs. [or JSF-Cs]
"We strongly support what the UK is doing on rolling landings," says Lt Gen John Castellaw, USMC deputy commandant for aviation. Studies on how the F-35B will be operated continue, but SRVL "appears to be a viable option", he says
The F-35B will also replace the USMC's Boeing AV-8Bs, but these normally operate alongside helicopters from assault carriers too small for conventional fighters.
"We continue to work with the navy on this," Castellaw says, pointing out the STOVL Harrier has been operated successfully alongside US Navy fighters as part of an air wing the carrier USS Roosevelt."

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 05:43
by bjr1028
The landing part isn't that hard, its the aircraft needing 550ft to take off, but only having 300. Remember, unlike the Harrier the F-35B needs a JBD. Operating F-35Bs would require a 5th JBD in the middle of the angled deck 250ft behind the port bow cat. As such, they would require their own landing and takeoff deck configuration separate from other carrier aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 06:22
by spazsinbad
bjr1028, you make the claim about 'restrictions'. I don't see it that way. I can envisage a 'smart' JSF takeoff that will use the engine/control 'computer control smarts' to minimise hazards to the deck and maximise takeoff performance in the deck space available. Just because the CVF will have a JBD does not mean one is required - though perhaps in the CVF circumstances it is useful (obviously a smaller carrier). My Harrier contacts question whether the JBD will be necessary but early days for any operational protocol to emerge publically for these sorts of potential operations on CVF or Conventional USN carriers.

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 08:42
by spazsinbad
Hmmm, maybe this 'joint USN/USMC operating environment' is going to disappear anyway:

Navy, Corps shelve shared missions boost By Chris Amos - Staff writer Posted : Monday Aug 11, 2008

"A Navy and Marine Corps plan to integrate Navy and Marine strike fighter squadrons has been put on hold, replaced by a “capabilities-based scheduling approach” that one defense analyst says is a tacit admission that integrating strike fighter communities was a bad idea to begin with.

In 2003, then-Navy Secretary Gordon England, then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark and then-Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Jones inked an agreement to place a Marine F/A-18 Hornet squadron in each of the Navy’s 10 carrier air wings and its three Hornet squadrons assigned to ground-based, close-air support missions normally flown by Marines, starting in 2012.

The agreement was updated in 2005 and again earlier this year. Each time, Navy and Marine officials strayed further from its original objective.

Marine spokesman Maj. Eric Dent said the need to provide close-air support for ground units in Iraq forced Navy Department officials to pull back from the plan because attempts to adhere to the agreement had “significant negative effects on operations and readiness.”

For now, officials have settled for having a minimum of two Marine Hornet squadrons assigned to carrier air wings, with an additional Marine squadron assigned to a carrier air wing for every Navy squadron fulfilling a unit deployment program. Because there is now just one Navy squadron assigned to a UDP, just three of 13 Marine Hornet squadrons are assigned to carrier air wings. An additional Marine Hornet squadron should be assigned to a carrier air wing by 2012, Dent said.

Another Marine Hornet squadron is permanently forward deployed to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, and two additional squadrons are at Iwakuni as part of a UDP. A fourth squadron is deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In contrast, just one of 15 Navy legacy Hornet squadrons is forward deployed for a shore-based mission — and that is flown from a base in Japan. None of the four Marine Prowler squadrons operates from a carrier, the Marine Corps has yet to buy a single Super Hornet, and the Corps remains committed to a version of the F-35 that will not be able to fly from aircraft carriers — all facts that lead defense analyst Loren Thompson to believe the Navy Department was never serious about tactical air integration.

But Dent insisted that Marine officials support the spirit and substance of tactical air integration.

“This is something that [deputy commandant for aviation] Lt. Gen. [George] Trautman is passionate about,” Dent said. “We are going to live up to our end of the bargain. He thinks it is important to have Marine squadrons embarked upon strike groups, because that is part of our naval character.

“We, both Marine and Navy, have to use a capabilities-based scheduling approach to provide responsive, integrated support to our war fighters. [It will be] globally sourced, across the Department of the Navy, as the strategic environment changes,” he said.

Naval Air Forces spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown said the Navy also is committed to tactical air integration, but stressed that the 2003 memorandum called for continuing updates as the Defense Department requirements change.

Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, said the tactical air integration plan had a different, unstated motivation: to allow the Navy Department to spend less money buying the Hornet’s eventual replacement, the F-35 Lightning, and use that money for other programs.

“It was an excuse for cutting 400 aircraft out of the buy of the F-35,” Thompson said, adding that those savings could make the program more acceptable to lawmakers while allowing the Navy Department to fund other priorities. “The idea being there would be synergies that would allow them to do the same job with less aircraft. They saved a bunch of money by dreaming up a goofy idea that doesn’t work in the real world.”

Thompson said Marine and Navy aviators have different training and orientation, which means they are suited for different missions.

“There’s a very close integration between Marine ground fighters and Marine aviators,” he said. “The Navy aviators are into strike warfare, which is basically bombing from a distance.

“What the Marines are saying, based on experience in Iraq, is that there are operational limitations to integration. It looks better on paper than it works in practice,” Thompson said."

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 23:23
by gf0012-aust
spazsinbad wrote:Hmmm, maybe this 'joint USN/USMC operating environment' is going to disappear anyway:

I attended a briefing on NCW issues given by Norman Friedman about 4 months ago.

He was somewhat disparaging and dismissive of Joint concepts and basically inidcated that trying to get the services to co-operate across common ground and playing nice in the same sandpit was not producing benefits. he regarded as something that was being idealogically pushed and not supported by actual events.

fundamentally his belief was that the services needed to be service centric and for central command not to try and turn them into a "jack of all trades - master of none" type construct.

much to the chagrine of some pilots in the room, he stated that the only service that got the concept of "joint" right was the USN.

There were quite a few squirming in their seats at that comment, :)

He's an interesting man, irrespective of ones doctrinal belief system

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2009, 23:37
by spazsinbad
gf0012=aust, interesting - thanks. Is this an influence also? :-) NO CAPS

"NOT "e. e. cummings" by Norman Friedman [Spring 1 (1992): 114-121]
It may at first seem of little import, but for a poet who paid such exacting attention to typography, it must be said once and for all that his name should be written and printed with the usual capital letters in their usual places: "E. E. Cummings.'' Let us dispose, first of all, of the usual reaction when his name is mentioned in conversation: "Oh, isn't he the poet who never uses capitals?"

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2009, 02:34
by spazsinbad
Ski Jump Explained (Forum Graphic): ... 1259512375

'Obi Wan Russell': "I get asked to explain the ski jump regularly, since many seem unable to grasp the point. When you leave the end of the ramp, you will only be at about 80 knots and you aren't actually flying yet. But you are still accelerating and the ramp has converted some of your forward momentum into vertical thrust so you gain altitude whilst you are accelerating. Before you reach the top of the arc you will have reached true flying speed (about 130knots, and you will be at about 200ft)." ... 518&page=4

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2009, 02:37
by spazsinbad
Some wag has added a 'red ski jump for Xmas' to this USMC flat top:

USMC ski jump 'fitted': ... 518&page=4
& (3Mbs LARGE)