Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 21:46

How about youse take this NON Naval Aviation talk to another thread. Thanks.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5378
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 23:46

hobo wrote:
Operating costs and a mature but advanced approach to networking.

Plus with the F414 EPE it will go like a scalded-a$$ ape.



Yes, faster planes are really cool. That is what we need. Faster. (Hello, fanboy?)

and another new/incompatible datalink would be a really welcome addition too.


Tell me in your mind(since that is what we are talking about here) how much "faster" a Gripen NG would be than a late model F-16, and what exactly do you think that would enable a Gripen to do that the F-16 couldn't?

I mean if the Gripen is a scalded ape, what is the F-16? A startled cat? Can you maybe convert your fanboy units over into something useful for those of us who don't rely on animal analogies when thinking about fighters?



Anyway, I think everyone can get behind this wonderful plan for an immature, but marginally faster plane with an incompatible datalink. Those are game changing capabilities right there and the ape feature sounds cool too.


Since the subject of speed and the F-16 came up. . . There's an article in Code One magazine in which some Edwards AFB F-16 test pilots were talking about the performance of the F-16. They looked at taking back some of the time-to-climb records (from the Flanker no less) and figured they could bust the F-104's low altitude record as well. They were told, in a nutshell, "don't you DARE!" (I'm guessing the time-to-climb records would have been some of the lower altitude ones since to go after the higher ones you need to be going FAST to get up there. The Streak Eagle broke Mach 2.2 in one of it's record flights.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Jun 2011, 00:04

B/S for NavAV.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post29 Jun 2011, 12:39

spazsinbad wrote:First landing of a Harrier in the Juan Carlos I [Spanish LHD same as Oz LHDs x 2 soon] 04 of May of 2011


Word coming out of the D+I conference on at present is that 2x LHD is about to become 3x LHD...

All of the same design and size. It's hinted at in the latest Defence Capability plan update where the sealift Ship project suddenly ballooned in budget up to $2b.

Still no F-35b's though I'm afraid and as the 3rd will be built to the same specifications as the original 2...

:(

Largs Bay will be operating alongside the expanded fleet until her LoT though, so ADF amphibious capability gets a pretty large overall boost...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Jun 2011, 13:51

Nice. Thanks. How about a fast mover?

Big cat steams on to the radar for crisis work - Bruce Stannard June 27, 2011

http://www.smh.com.au/national/big-cat- ... 1glqc.html

"THE Defence Department is considering acquiring a 112- metre wave-piercing catamaran as part of a new regional rapid-reaction strategy for the Royal Australian Navy.

The $100 million jet-powered vessel, now nearing completion in Hobart, will be capable of speeds of up to 40 knots, delivering a 1000-tonne payload within hours to any destination within 2000 nautical miles of the coast.

Designed and built by Incat Tasmania, the as-yet-unnamed vessel has completed immersion tests and is expected to be ready for official sea trials within two or three weeks. The ship could be operational within a month if defence approves its acquisition.

An identical sister ship, now operated as a ferry, played a vital relief role when chartered by government authorities for use in the tsunami crisis, quickly moving many tonnes of emergency supplies and relief workers to devastated cities in Japan's north-east.

Japanese authorities are believed to be so impressed with the vessel's performance that they are considering buying several more identical vessels.

High-ranking navy officers are understood to have held talks with their counterparts in Japan on further co-operation.

The jet cats, which can reach Fiji from Australia in less than two days or Christchurch within 24 hours, could reach any part of the natural disaster-prone Indonesian archipelago within hours.

The vast aluminium hulls, with a beam of 31 metres, are not only able to carry prodigious quantities of emergency supplies, but also act as floating hospitals and can easily navigate shallow waters.

Equipped with helicopters and roll-on, roll-off ramps, they can quickly discharge large volumes of humanitarian aid and play a vital reconnaissance and recovery role.

Three of the vessels have served with the US Navy and the US Army. The RAN was slow to recognise their value until the Timor crisis in 1999 when an 86-metre jet cat ferry, previously running between Melbourne and Hobart, was leased by the navy. Renamed HMAS Jervis Bay, the ship earned the nickname Dili Express as she transported personnel and materiel over the Timor Sea continuously for the two years of the emergency.

If the navy does acquire the latest 112-metre jet cat, the vessel is expected to be based in Sydney or Darwin.

Incat's chairman, Robert Clifford, confirmed that the proposal was being considered by defence.

"Ideally, we could have rapid response sister ships, one in Japan and the other in Australia, sharing responsibility for attending to the kind of emergency situations that develop up north,'' Mr Clifford said. ''Defence has been considering the proposal for two months and we would like to think that they are warmly disposed to the idea."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post29 Jun 2011, 14:23

Retaining the 13 degree ski-jump would imply this is not without a reason.
(In case of a completely flat deck the ships have more parking place)
Although not now, in a later stage, the F35B may be will be ordered by Australia?

As long as Australia has got no F35B’s, still in a joint operation with the US, the ships
can also be used by US F35B’s
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post29 Jun 2011, 16:23

m wrote:Retaining the 13 degree ski-jump would imply this is not without a reason.
(In case of a completely flat deck the ships have more parking place)
Although not now, in a later stage, the F35B may be will be ordered by Australia?

As long as Australia has got no F35B’s, still in a joint operation with the US, the ships
can also be used by US F35B’s


The reason is that Australia was too tight-fisted to actually pay to have the design modified and the bow ramp removed. The Royal Australian Navy seriously considered having it removed, but in the end it was cheaper to simply leave the design as is. '

There is no plan to operate F-35B's from the Canberra Class LHD's. Plans can change as Spaz has pointed out many times, but it would be an unprecedented change for the Australian Navy. Never has a major capability been removed from service completely without replacement and then returned to service in a new form decades later.

Even this third LHD if the rumour is true is not a new capability acquisition, but rather a replacement for an existing project, the planned "Sealift" ship.

ADF has said til it is blue in the face that there is no plan to acquire F-35B and it would take a major reversal of nearly 3 decades of political will on both sides of our Political arena NOT to have a carrier capability.

Anything that has been decided can be undecided, but the change would literally be enormous in Australia's case and the mere fact that we have boats with a flat deck now doesn't change that fact
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post29 Jun 2011, 16:37

spazsinbad wrote:Nice. Thanks. How about a fast mover?


As a temporary solution yes. Over the longer term when we will already have Largs Bay and 3x LHD's (assuming that happens), plus the new fleet of faster LCH's? Unnecessary.

The problem with Cats are that they are fast during calm weather and slow or non-existant during rough weather. They carry a light cargo load compared to traditional amphibious ships and they cost a heap in fuel costs per nm travelled.

They also aren't a naval ship of any kind and require a helo (for light cargo and passengers) or a wharf (and for anything heavy). They can't carry landing craft nor can they land men, materiel or vehicles onto a beach, except by helo, but if you fit a helicopter, plus landing pad, some sort of hangar (even a temporary one) plus air traffic management capability your cargo load goes out the window even further.

If RAN acquires this Cat and fits it with a landing platform etc, it won't be carrying 1000t, it'll probably halve that. Compare that to Largs Bay for instance which has 2.5 times the vehicle lane metres (1200 compared to 567) and can carry up to 24x 24 TEU containers or 12x 40 TEU containers, has 2x 30 tonne cranes attached integrally, can carry 2x landing craft in a well dock, 2x Chinook sized aircraft on it's flight deck and has the deck strength to carry 24x M1A1 Abrams class main battle tanks (65 tons) and it can take all this at 18 knots, 8000nm through rough seas and sustain this force whilst it's there. Plus the Largs Bay is capable of being as well armed as Kanimbla and Manoora were (for self defence only - Phalanx close in weapon stations and anti-surface guns).

Now these cats can take 1000 troops, whereas Largs Bay is only equipped to carry 356 (or up to 700 in overload conditions) but these 1000 passengers are sitting on seats with few toilets, no showers and "take away food stand" style amenities, ie: short trips only.

Largs Bay has proper cabins (for 356) with showers, toilets, bunk beds and all the amenities a warship should have, including galleys, recreational rooms and gyms etc.

Effectively the Cat is nothing more than a civilian ferry. Fast yes. Can be useful for certain missions yes. But it's not a replacement for a proper amphibious ship.

Three of the vessels have served with the US Navy and the US Army. The RAN was slow to recognise their value until the Timor crisis in 1999 when an 86-metre jet cat ferry, previously running between Melbourne and Hobart, was leased by the navy. Renamed HMAS Jervis Bay, the ship earned the nickname Dili Express as she transported personnel and materiel over the Timor Sea continuously for the two years of the emergency.


RAN was slow? When did the US Navy start running their HSV's about 1999 wasn't it? When was HMAS Jervis Bay commissioned? About 1999 wasn't it?

The reason RAN was so "slow" is that these aren't a replacement for a true amphibious ship and if we hadn't bought the POS Kanimbla and Manoora and had bought a new amphibious ship in the early 1990's when we needed to, HMAS Jervis Bay would never have served ADF. We needed the Dili Express only because we didn't have anything else available at the time...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23176
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Jun 2011, 22:28

Conan, thanks for your comprehensive reply.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post30 Jun 2011, 10:23

Conan wrote:[Anything that has been decided can be undecided, but the change would literally be enormous in Australia's case and the mere fact that we have boats with a flat deck now doesn't change that fact



Enormous.......hardly and things change all the time. Hell, how many times did we hear that the Ex-Varyag would never return to service with the PLAN! How about that Japan would never aquire Aircraft Carriers! As a matter of fact how many times did we hear the merits of STOVL F-35B's over F-35C's on the UK's forthcoming CVF's. Yet, they all happened.......

Sorry, the odds are the F-35B is a real option for the RAN/RAAF.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post30 Jun 2011, 14:28

Corsair1963 wrote:
Conan wrote:[Anything that has been decided can be undecided, but the change would literally be enormous in Australia's case and the mere fact that we have boats with a flat deck now doesn't change that fact



Enormous.......hardly and things change all the time. Hell, how many times did we hear that the Ex-Varyag would never return to service with the PLAN! How about that Japan would never aquire Aircraft Carriers! As a matter of fact how many times did we hear the merits of STOVL F-35B's over F-35C's on the UK's forthcoming CVF's. Yet, they all happened.......

Sorry, the odds are the F-35B is a real option for the RAN/RAAF.


Both sides of Australian politics and the ADF Head Shed have been against the re-introduction of a fixed wing Fleet Air Arm for nearly 30 years now.

Sure, whatever. Why not think it's a real option for ADF simply because we're buying a couple of flat tops? Clearly no other considerations would go into the decision to reintroduce something we haven't operated in 3 decades. Nope, the only consideration is whether or not we have something for an aircraft to land on at sea...

:roll:
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3245
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post30 Jun 2011, 16:06

underhill wrote: F-35-class VLO is not worthless. But as long as we are thinking China, neither it nor most other tac aircraft can get there from land bases, because when it started we were just beginning to stop thinking Europe (500nm) and thinking MidEast (700 nm).


How far inland(China), do you reckon that the USN would need to operate fixed wing aircraft? It's not as if in any conceivable conflict, that a regime change scenario would be realistic. In any likely conflict, you'd see a combination of systems used, to degrade China's ability to threaten CBGs.
There'd likely be a lot of TLAMs fired from SSNs, to take out a number of threats. Then you have to figure that various other ships in the CBG would also fire TLAMS. Add in F-35Cs armed wish JASSM/ERs/JSOW/ERs(and you could minimize the threats in relatively short order). When you look at this combination, you have to factor in the range of the aircraft and weapon system, to get a feel for the real radius of coverage. Even if the carrier were parked 400-500nm off the coast, that'd still allow the F-35C the ability to get 200-300nm inland, and the JASSM-ER would be able to reach targets tat were 800-nm inland(or more). There'd also be non-kinetic means of dealing with other threats/threat enablers, along with AEGIS pickets protecting the fleet.

Mind you, this doesn't take into account all of the capabilities that the USN can bring to the fight, not to mention the USAF.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Jul 2011, 08:30

Conan wrote:
Both sides of Australian politics and the ADF Head Shed have been against the re-introduction of a fixed wing Fleet Air Arm for nearly 30 years now.

Sure, whatever. Why not think it's a real option for ADF simply because we're buying a couple of flat tops? Clearly no other considerations would go into the decision to reintroduce something we haven't operated in 3 decades. Nope, the only consideration is whether or not we have something for an aircraft to land on at sea...

:roll:


Sorry, the whole point is things change! While, today Australia may not be so inclined to go purchase F-35B's for it's forthcoming LHD's. Yet, in another decade. When China fields at least one or two Large Carriers of its own. Followed by Japanese and South Korean Mid Sized Carriers equipped with F-35B's. Australia may very well change its mind. To say that is not possible or even highly unlikely. Is well laughable in my opinion.......
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post01 Jul 2011, 09:22

Corsair1963 wrote:
Sorry, the whole point is things change! While, today Australia may not be so inclined to go purchase F-35B's for it's forthcoming LHD's. Yet, in another decade. When China fields at least one or two Large Carriers of its own. Followed by Japanese and South Korean Mid Sized Carriers equipped with F-35B's. Australia may very well change its mind. To say that is not possible or even highly unlikely. Is well laughable in my opinion.......


Things certainly do change. The third LHD if it arrives demonstrates that most clearly.

However RAN force planning goes out to 2030 at the current time and there isn't any anything in that planning to suggest fixed wing solutions are being considered at all, let alone "likely".

The reason is the Government's attitude towards the idea politically and thinking that the fact that some other nations might have them is going to influence that thinking is what is laughable.

We PAID for Thailand's carrier back in the 1990's and I still don't see RAN's carrier anywhere...

I don't disagree with their utility and would love to see F-35b's operating off a proper RAN flat top, however the Canberra LHD's as currently designed are not that ship.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post01 Jul 2011, 09:46

Conan wrote:Things certainly do change. The third LHD if it arrives demonstrates that most clearly.

However RAN force planning goes out to 2030 at the current time and there isn't any anything in that planning to suggest fixed wing solutions are being considered at all, let alone "likely".

The reason is the Government's attitude towards the idea politically and thinking that the fact that some other nations might have them is going to influence that thinking is what is laughable.

We PAID for Thailand's carrier back in the 1990's and I still don't see RAN's carrier anywhere...

I don't disagree with their utility and would love to see F-35b's operating off a proper RAN flat top, however the Canberra LHD's as currently designed are not that ship.



Well, the RAAF never planned on purchasing the Super Hornet. Yet, with the delay of the F-35 and the age of the F-111 and F/A-18 Hornet Fleets. The Austraila Governement decided to purchase the Super Hornet as a Stop Gap. Then with the advanages of the Growler. Australia is considering it as a strong option. Even getting its current Super Hornets. Wired to take its Jammers and possibly convert them from exsisting stocks......Which, all leads to my point that THINGS CHANGE. Regardless, believe what you want.


Respectfully
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests