Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
For an entertaining "SHAR" read, one cannot go past this tome (only an excerpt below).
The Harrier Story. Sunday, September 18, 2011
The Harrier Story – A Forsaken Legend By Commander “Sharkey” Ward DSC AFC, September 2011.
http://www.sharkeysworld.com/2011/09/harrier-story.html
“...11. My Air Warfare Instructor training had taught me that no matter how good you are at fighter combat or weapon delivery, if you don’t keep flight safety and survival in the forefront of your mind at all times, then you are asking for trouble. This served me well during Harrier training because there was one part of the flight envelope that could be extremely hazardous if you didn’t obey the rules.
12. This was when the aircraft was in transition from wing-borne flight to the hover. The transition commences during your approach to hover and land. The aircraft nozzles are placed in the vertical and as the aircraft slows down rapidly, power is increased to make up for the loss of lift from the wings – until eventually you are being supported entirely by the thrust of the four nozzles. During this transition period which lasts for just a few seconds, it is essential to keep the airflow over the aircraft directly in line with the fore and aft axis. A little wind vane sits on the nose of the aircraft in clear view of the pilot to allow the pilot to make sure that he is decelerating directly into the relative wind. If the air stream is allowed to drift away from the nose of the aircraft, a phenomenon known as Yaw Intake Momentum Drag can suddenly set in and without any other warning the aircraft will roll viciously upside down. This puts the pilot ‘between a rock and a hard place’: either ‘stick with the aircraft and burn as you crash’ or ‘use the rocket powered ejection seat to hammer you headfirst into the ground’. Normally there is no escape possible!
13. My superb Royal Navy Sea Harrier Squadron trials team pilots were so well tutored on the vices of the Harrier by the RAF HCU that during our first three years of trials and operations with this “difficult” aircraft, we had no accidents and achieved the best flight safety record of any jet aircraft entering service ever in the UK. And so I am eternally grateful to them. The US Marine Corps had a less fortunate experience. At that time, their attitude was that if you fly one aeroplane you can fly any aeroplane. Aircrew with insufficient training were therefore put into the AV-8 Harrier resulting in many fatal crashes.”
The Harrier Story. Sunday, September 18, 2011
The Harrier Story – A Forsaken Legend By Commander “Sharkey” Ward DSC AFC, September 2011.
http://www.sharkeysworld.com/2011/09/harrier-story.html
“...11. My Air Warfare Instructor training had taught me that no matter how good you are at fighter combat or weapon delivery, if you don’t keep flight safety and survival in the forefront of your mind at all times, then you are asking for trouble. This served me well during Harrier training because there was one part of the flight envelope that could be extremely hazardous if you didn’t obey the rules.
12. This was when the aircraft was in transition from wing-borne flight to the hover. The transition commences during your approach to hover and land. The aircraft nozzles are placed in the vertical and as the aircraft slows down rapidly, power is increased to make up for the loss of lift from the wings – until eventually you are being supported entirely by the thrust of the four nozzles. During this transition period which lasts for just a few seconds, it is essential to keep the airflow over the aircraft directly in line with the fore and aft axis. A little wind vane sits on the nose of the aircraft in clear view of the pilot to allow the pilot to make sure that he is decelerating directly into the relative wind. If the air stream is allowed to drift away from the nose of the aircraft, a phenomenon known as Yaw Intake Momentum Drag can suddenly set in and without any other warning the aircraft will roll viciously upside down. This puts the pilot ‘between a rock and a hard place’: either ‘stick with the aircraft and burn as you crash’ or ‘use the rocket powered ejection seat to hammer you headfirst into the ground’. Normally there is no escape possible!
13. My superb Royal Navy Sea Harrier Squadron trials team pilots were so well tutored on the vices of the Harrier by the RAF HCU that during our first three years of trials and operations with this “difficult” aircraft, we had no accidents and achieved the best flight safety record of any jet aircraft entering service ever in the UK. And so I am eternally grateful to them. The US Marine Corps had a less fortunate experience. At that time, their attitude was that if you fly one aeroplane you can fly any aeroplane. Aircrew with insufficient training were therefore put into the AV-8 Harrier resulting in many fatal crashes.”
- Banned
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23
Spaz, I know this thread is one of your babies, but a lot of your posts here seem to have little to do with the topic at hand; it's a little disappointing to see a new post, only to find out that you've just pasted in another loosely related article.
I've noticed that the new LHA-6 America is getting close to completion, and there are already rumblings about how it might be used as a cheaper alternative to CVNs. With austerity measures coming, mightn't the USN take a second look at smaller carriers? They might free up cash for other needs more pressing than new supercarriers (like the recapitalization of surface combatants, attack submarines, and a new SSBN).
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/05/06/post- ... er-debate/
I've noticed that the new LHA-6 America is getting close to completion, and there are already rumblings about how it might be used as a cheaper alternative to CVNs. With austerity measures coming, mightn't the USN take a second look at smaller carriers? They might free up cash for other needs more pressing than new supercarriers (like the recapitalization of surface combatants, attack submarines, and a new SSBN).
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/05/06/post- ... er-debate/
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
1st503rdsgt , probably should have put the item here:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... nding.html
At least the HWole article was not posted but I'll go sit on the naughty step anyway.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... nding.html
At least the HWole article was not posted but I'll go sit on the naughty step anyway.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
Over the Horizon: The Transformative Capabilities of the F-35B By Robert Farley | 05 Oct 2011
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/print/10234
OR
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/arti ... -the-f-35b
"...The F-35B provides a virtually unique capability for transforming amphibious assault ships into light strike/air superiority aircraft carriers. In export and international production, the F-35B can similarly transform warships such as the Japanese Hyuga-class Helicopter-Carrying Destroyer into light carriers capable of strike and air superiority missions. The F-35B is a force multiplier in the literal sense: It turns amphibious warships with limited strike capabilities into aircraft carriers roughly as capable as their most formidable foreign counterparts....
...The F-35B is more constrained in range, payload and stealth capabilities than its sisters, the F-35A and the F-35C. However, it adds air superiority and strike capabilities far beyond those currently available to the Harrier. The F-35B will also reportedly be much easier to fly than the Harrier, making it easier for pilots to remain qualified....
...the more appropriate comparison is to foreign aircraft carriers, against which U.S. amphibs converted into strike carriers look much better. Foreign aircraft carriers tend to be smaller and slower than the U.S. Nimitz class....
...At a time when the construction of every new Russian, Chinese or Indian carrier appears to be a cause for concern in the United States, the U.S. Navy has the ability to effectively create a dozen new carriers at will, each as capable as the most effective foreign contemporaries....
...The F-35B is one of those exceedingly rare weapon systems with transformative capabilities. With the F-35B, the United States Navy could have the equivalent of 22 strike carriers, a number that no other country could hope to challenge. This is a capability worth paying extra for. The F-35B could become a more important system than either of its sisters, or the F-22 Raptor. Unfortunately, too many seem to miss the forest for the trees."
All this fleshed out at the URLs above....
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/print/10234
OR
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/arti ... -the-f-35b
"...The F-35B provides a virtually unique capability for transforming amphibious assault ships into light strike/air superiority aircraft carriers. In export and international production, the F-35B can similarly transform warships such as the Japanese Hyuga-class Helicopter-Carrying Destroyer into light carriers capable of strike and air superiority missions. The F-35B is a force multiplier in the literal sense: It turns amphibious warships with limited strike capabilities into aircraft carriers roughly as capable as their most formidable foreign counterparts....
...The F-35B is more constrained in range, payload and stealth capabilities than its sisters, the F-35A and the F-35C. However, it adds air superiority and strike capabilities far beyond those currently available to the Harrier. The F-35B will also reportedly be much easier to fly than the Harrier, making it easier for pilots to remain qualified....
...the more appropriate comparison is to foreign aircraft carriers, against which U.S. amphibs converted into strike carriers look much better. Foreign aircraft carriers tend to be smaller and slower than the U.S. Nimitz class....
...At a time when the construction of every new Russian, Chinese or Indian carrier appears to be a cause for concern in the United States, the U.S. Navy has the ability to effectively create a dozen new carriers at will, each as capable as the most effective foreign contemporaries....
...The F-35B is one of those exceedingly rare weapon systems with transformative capabilities. With the F-35B, the United States Navy could have the equivalent of 22 strike carriers, a number that no other country could hope to challenge. This is a capability worth paying extra for. The F-35B could become a more important system than either of its sisters, or the F-22 Raptor. Unfortunately, too many seem to miss the forest for the trees."
All this fleshed out at the URLs above....
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2895
- Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
- Location: Houston
[quote="spazsinbad"][......The F-35B provides a virtually unique capability for transforming amphibious assault ships into light strike/air superiority aircraft carriers....The F-35B is one of those exceedingly rare weapon systems with transformative capabilities. With the F-35B, the United States Navy could have the equivalent of 22 strike carriers, a number that no other country could hope to challenge. ...quote]
....and then, can the "Bee" fit thru the hanger door for the LCS? If so the LCS could covertly transport one or two "Bees" to near shore and launch it to a forward fueling rearming station (like their harrier predecessors) for local air support. Those 22 strike carriers are then aided by the multitude of new clandestine "jeep ("Bee") carriers". Holy Camouflage Batman!
....and then, can the "Bee" fit thru the hanger door for the LCS? If so the LCS could covertly transport one or two "Bees" to near shore and launch it to a forward fueling rearming station (like their harrier predecessors) for local air support. Those 22 strike carriers are then aided by the multitude of new clandestine "jeep ("Bee") carriers". Holy Camouflage Batman!
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
- Location: Annapolis, MD
spazsinbad wrote:Over the Horizon: The Transformative Capabilities of the F-35B By Robert Farley | 05 Oct 2011
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/print/10234
OR
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/arti ... -the-f-35b
"...The F-35B provides a virtually unique capability for transforming amphibious assault ships into light strike/air superiority aircraft carriers. In export and international production, the F-35B can similarly transform warships such as the Japanese Hyuga-class Helicopter-Carrying Destroyer into light carriers capable of strike and air superiority missions. The F-35B is a force multiplier in the literal sense: It turns amphibious warships with limited strike capabilities into aircraft carriers roughly as capable as their most formidable foreign counterparts....
...The F-35B is more constrained in range, payload and stealth capabilities than its sisters, the F-35A and the F-35C. However, it adds air superiority and strike capabilities far beyond those currently available to the Harrier. The F-35B will also reportedly be much easier to fly than the Harrier, making it easier for pilots to remain qualified....
...the more appropriate comparison is to foreign aircraft carriers, against which U.S. amphibs converted into strike carriers look much better. Foreign aircraft carriers tend to be smaller and slower than the U.S. Nimitz class....
...At a time when the construction of every new Russian, Chinese or Indian carrier appears to be a cause for concern in the United States, the U.S. Navy has the ability to effectively create a dozen new carriers at will, each as capable as the most effective foreign contemporaries....
...The F-35B is one of those exceedingly rare weapon systems with transformative capabilities. With the F-35B, the United States Navy could have the equivalent of 22 strike carriers, a number that no other country could hope to challenge. This is a capability worth paying extra for. The F-35B could become a more important system than either of its sisters, or the F-22 Raptor. Unfortunately, too many seem to miss the forest for the trees."
All this fleshed out at the URLs above....
Mr. Farley also wrote an article in 2007 entitled "Abolish the Air Force."
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article ... _air_force
- Senior member
- Posts: 313
- Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40
What was this author smoking when he came up with the idea: F-35B can turn small carriers into something "roughly as capable" as their bigger counterparts?
That idea is utterly ludicrous and was decisively proven incorrect during the Falklands conflict.
From what I've heard, maxed out the Wasp can carry 22 - 24 F-35Bs. (And this means that it cannot conduct amphibious operations) Now, assuming that the battle group wants air cover against enemy recon / strike forces, they'll have to dedicate 16 planes to that task. 4 on station, 12 off station. This is to maintain a 24 hour CAP above the carrier. That leaves the battle group with 8 fighters to conduct air strikes. Now, because they'll be short take off planes, their combat radius will be only about 300 - 400 nm, without a massive bomb load. Factor in the need for SEAD and escorting, and you'll probably get, max, 2 targets per 8 sorties.
Compare that to the Nimitz: 24 Hornets, 24 F-35Bs. 16 Hornets for air defense. Another 8 will escort F-35 strikes, probably 2 - 4 Hornets per escort, and 4 - 6 F-35s per strike. Even then, you can bomb with 12 F-35Bs and 8 Hornets, hold the remaining 12 F-35Bs back as a reserve / standby for air attack. And this ignores the massive advantage of AEW, Jamming support, and the range of fixed wing carrier aircraft.
The problem with the LHA as a strike carrier is that it will not carry enough aircraft to be self sufficient. You'll probably need 2 LHAs working as a pair to conduct strikes. 1 provides air cover for the group, the other will actually carry out the attacks. At which point, its probably best just to get a carrier.
That idea is utterly ludicrous and was decisively proven incorrect during the Falklands conflict.
From what I've heard, maxed out the Wasp can carry 22 - 24 F-35Bs. (And this means that it cannot conduct amphibious operations) Now, assuming that the battle group wants air cover against enemy recon / strike forces, they'll have to dedicate 16 planes to that task. 4 on station, 12 off station. This is to maintain a 24 hour CAP above the carrier. That leaves the battle group with 8 fighters to conduct air strikes. Now, because they'll be short take off planes, their combat radius will be only about 300 - 400 nm, without a massive bomb load. Factor in the need for SEAD and escorting, and you'll probably get, max, 2 targets per 8 sorties.
Compare that to the Nimitz: 24 Hornets, 24 F-35Bs. 16 Hornets for air defense. Another 8 will escort F-35 strikes, probably 2 - 4 Hornets per escort, and 4 - 6 F-35s per strike. Even then, you can bomb with 12 F-35Bs and 8 Hornets, hold the remaining 12 F-35Bs back as a reserve / standby for air attack. And this ignores the massive advantage of AEW, Jamming support, and the range of fixed wing carrier aircraft.
The problem with the LHA as a strike carrier is that it will not carry enough aircraft to be self sufficient. You'll probably need 2 LHAs working as a pair to conduct strikes. 1 provides air cover for the group, the other will actually carry out the attacks. At which point, its probably best just to get a carrier.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
arkadyrenko said: "What was this author smoking when he came up with the idea: F-35B can turn small carriers into something "roughly as capable" as their bigger counterparts?" Your quote misquoted the quote which was about 'FOREIGN counterparts'.
Not sure if you were able to read the entire article? To me the point was the additional capability the F-35B brings to the LHDs whilst "the more appropriate comparison is to foreign aircraft carriers, against which U.S. amphibs converted into strike carriers look much better...." And that rather than compare varieties of F-35 the comparison should be Harrier to F-35B, which is transformative.
Yes any combination of whatever does not equal a NIMITZ class but the author is not suggesting that IMHO.
Not sure if you were able to read the entire article? To me the point was the additional capability the F-35B brings to the LHDs whilst "the more appropriate comparison is to foreign aircraft carriers, against which U.S. amphibs converted into strike carriers look much better...." And that rather than compare varieties of F-35 the comparison should be Harrier to F-35B, which is transformative.
Yes any combination of whatever does not equal a NIMITZ class but the author is not suggesting that IMHO.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
- Location: Annapolis, MD
arkadyrenko wrote:What was this author smoking when he came up with the idea: F-35B can turn small carriers into something "roughly as capable" as their bigger counterparts?
That idea is utterly ludicrous and was decisively proven incorrect during the Falklands conflict.
From what I've heard, maxed out the Wasp can carry 22 - 24 F-35Bs. (And this means that it cannot conduct amphibious operations) Now, assuming that the battle group wants air cover against enemy recon / strike forces, they'll have to dedicate 16 planes to that task. 4 on station, 12 off station. This is to maintain a 24 hour CAP above the carrier. That leaves the battle group with 8 fighters to conduct air strikes. Now, because they'll be short take off planes, their combat radius will be only about 300 - 400 nm, without a massive bomb load. Factor in the need for SEAD and escorting, and you'll probably get, max, 2 targets per 8 sorties.
Compare that to the Nimitz: 24 Hornets, 24 F-35Bs. 16 Hornets for air defense. Another 8 will escort F-35 strikes, probably 2 - 4 Hornets per escort, and 4 - 6 F-35s per strike. Even then, you can bomb with 12 F-35Bs and 8 Hornets, hold the remaining 12 F-35Bs back as a reserve / standby for air attack. And this ignores the massive advantage of AEW, Jamming support, and the range of fixed wing carrier aircraft.
The problem with the LHA as a strike carrier is that it will not carry enough aircraft to be self sufficient. You'll probably need 2 LHAs working as a pair to conduct strikes. 1 provides air cover for the group, the other will actually carry out the attacks. At which point, its probably best just to get a carrier.
+1
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3772
- Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12
What arkadyrenko posted is partially the reason why I believe a small carrier only makes sense for counter terrorism, where you need unconventional force. Overall, when speaking of conventional warfare, its much better use of money to go big carriers.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3905
- Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
Some of you guys don't get it. This isn't a binary argument over big ships or "little" ships. F-35B gives the US 22 5th Gen TACAIR-capable ships for no more ship-building investment than it has already made. And, on top of that it gets the flexibility of multi-role ships that can do the wide range of things that the amphibs have been doing for years (and getting little notice for). The US needs the bigger hammer of the CVN, but the CVN does not have the versatility of the big deck amphib and that versatility -- in numbers -- is only going to be more useful going forward.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
- Location: UK
quicksilver wrote:Some of you guys don't get it. This isn't a binary argument over big ships or "little" ships. F-35B gives the US 22 5th Gen TACAIR-capable ships for no more ship-building investment than it has already made. And, on top of that it gets the flexibility of multi-role ships that can do the wide range of things that the amphibs have been doing for years (and getting little notice for). The US needs the bigger hammer of the CVN, but the CVN does not have the versatility of the big deck amphib and that versatility -- in numbers -- is only going to be more useful going forward.
Hey some of us get it but thanks to the rampant "anything but JSF" thinking that we now have to put up with the glaringly obvious facts of the matter, such as what you've just written, are ignored or simply dismissed as hogwash.
- Senior member
- Posts: 313
- Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40
The problem is that the author puts forward the fantasy that a LHA type ship can be 'roughly equivalent' to a big deck carrier, either the CVN or a Varyag equivalent. That line of reasoning is not only false, it is dangerous insomuch as it enables those who want to cut defense but need the veneer of not 'harming national security.'
So yes, the F-35B will give those carriers more flexibility, but that doesn't really make much of an impact in high end warfare. The real effect of the F-35B, I think, will be in three areas:
1) Japan's newest "helicopter destroyer" will become a mini-carrier with the F-35B
2) The F-35B will become a crucial asset in forward American bases, as the plane can provide air cover when the runways are cratered by Chinese MRBMs
3) The F-35B will also probably have a new role in the close air support, irronically because nearby airbases are too easily threatened by long range missiles. Probably in a North Korean invasion scenario, the F-35B will be on of the few planes that can operate from bases within 150 - 100 nm of the border.
The F-35B's role in small wars will be miniscule, because in all honesty, has the US fought many small wars in the last 20 years?
So yes, the F-35B will give those carriers more flexibility, but that doesn't really make much of an impact in high end warfare. The real effect of the F-35B, I think, will be in three areas:
1) Japan's newest "helicopter destroyer" will become a mini-carrier with the F-35B
2) The F-35B will become a crucial asset in forward American bases, as the plane can provide air cover when the runways are cratered by Chinese MRBMs
3) The F-35B will also probably have a new role in the close air support, irronically because nearby airbases are too easily threatened by long range missiles. Probably in a North Korean invasion scenario, the F-35B will be on of the few planes that can operate from bases within 150 - 100 nm of the border.
The F-35B's role in small wars will be miniscule, because in all honesty, has the US fought many small wars in the last 20 years?
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3905
- Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
arkadyrenko wrote:The problem is that the author puts forward the fantasy that a LHA type ship can be 'roughly equivalent' to a big deck carrier, either the CVN or a Varyag equivalent. That line of reasoning is not only false, it is dangerous insomuch as it enables those who want to cut defense but need the veneer of not 'harming national security.'
Not sure how "...turns amphibious warships with limited strike capabilities into aircraft carriers roughly as capable as their most formidable foreign counterparts..." translates into "roughly equivalent" to CVN. If there's another quote where the author said that please provide, because I missed it. Also not sure how more TACAIR capable platforms is a bad thing for the national security.
The fact is that F-35B will enhance global naval forward presence, flexible crisis response and power projection in ways that the other two F-35 variants do not.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
- Location: Annapolis, MD
madrat wrote:What arkadyrenko posted is partially the reason why I believe a small carrier only makes sense for counter terrorism, where you need unconventional force. Overall, when speaking of conventional warfare, its much better use of money to go big carriers.
+1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests