Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

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

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post17 Jul 2009, 05:18

spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for the ending to get us back on track thumper. Perhaps ELP did not pose the question correctly. I would have thought that the USMC would run a dedicated small ski jump carrier (with all the grunt required) using JSF-Bs so that the USMC own and control the whole package (I guess the Navy run the ship) with the aircrew/maintainers and Command & Control being Marine to go and do what the Marines require. Of course I'm only dreaming.

I guess until the RN carriers are built using JSF-Bs there are going to be some unknowns. Personally I would be confident that the RN FAA will get the best out of what they are given - to surprise some of us anyway. Remember the Falklands War.


I think you need to understand how the USMC fits into the overall scheme of things to realize that it would never happen.

The Marines are not an independent arm of the armed forces of the United States. Like the Coast Guard they are a subordinate command. In the Coast Guard's case during peacetime it currently is subordinate to the Dept of Homeland Security. The Marines are subordinate to the Navy. The Navy mans and commands the ships not the Marines. Money for the Marines comes out of the Navy's budget. Although the Navy holds all the cards the Marines have some powerful friends in Congress.

The Marines want to replace all their fixed wing TACAIR with F-35Bs. The Navy is adamant Marine F-18s get replaced by F-35Cs. The fourth fighter squadron in most Carrier Air Wings is Marine F-18s. The Navy does not want to mix up B's and C's since the be is not as capable, it makes mission planning more difficult, and it complicates logistics.

I happen to think the Navy is right. If the replacements for the Marine F-18s stay under Marine control they should be F-35Cs and only the Harrier replacements should be Bs. Time will tell if the Navy wins this argument. The reason I bring it up is to illustrate yet another reason why the Navy would never allow the Marines to own and control the whole package.

As for the FAA, let hope that reason prevails in the UK and something to replace the Invincible s gets built.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Jul 2009, 05:30

thumper I guess I'm on the side of the Marines then. Yes - the Marine situation is understood and I understand how they would like to be more independent, if possible. As you say that is not likely to happen, in the same way Marine pilots did not get ski jumps on their flat tops. I had not really considered the changeover of Marine Hornets with JSF types. The RN FAA need all the help they can garner.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Jul 2009, 09:39

Possible new candidate for a VERY LARGE Nuclear JSF-B/Harrier Carrier (+ Helos of course):

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

“I am concerned about the EMALS program for the next aircraft carrier. As the Secretary knows well, I recently visited the production facility and was favorably impressed; however, failure of this one system to deliver on its promises means we are building the world’s largest helicopter carrier. I would like the Secretary to address what additional oversight and continuity of oversight he envisions for this program."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 516
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post29 Jul 2009, 17:20

It would have been nice to build something CVF sized as a trials/training carrier for EMALS instead of just praying it will work for the ford class.
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 516
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post29 Jul 2009, 17:23

Thumper3181 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for the ending to get us back on track thumper. Perhaps ELP did not pose the question correctly. I would have thought that the USMC would run a dedicated small ski jump carrier (with all the grunt required) using JSF-Bs so that the USMC own and control the whole package (I guess the Navy run the ship) with the aircrew/maintainers and Command & Control being Marine to go and do what the Marines require. Of course I'm only dreaming.

I guess until the RN carriers are built using JSF-Bs there are going to be some unknowns. Personally I would be confident that the RN FAA will get the best out of what they are given - to surprise some of us anyway. Remember the Falklands War.


I think you need to understand how the USMC fits into the overall scheme of things to realize that it would never happen.

The Marines are not an independent arm of the armed forces of the United States. Like the Coast Guard they are a subordinate command. In the Coast Guard's case during peacetime it currently is subordinate to the Dept of Homeland Security. The Marines are subordinate to the Navy. The Navy mans and commands the ships not the Marines. Money for the Marines comes out of the Navy's budget. Although the Navy holds all the cards the Marines have some powerful friends in Congress.

The Marines want to replace all their fixed wing TACAIR with F-35Bs. The Navy is adamant Marine F-18s get replaced by F-35Cs. The fourth fighter squadron in most Carrier Air Wings is Marine F-18s. The Navy does not want to mix up B's and C's since the be is not as capable, it makes mission planning more difficult, and it complicates logistics.

I happen to think the Navy is right. If the replacements for the Marine F-18s stay under Marine control they should be F-35Cs and only the Harrier replacements should be Bs. Time will tell if the Navy wins this argument. The reason I bring it up is to illustrate yet another reason why the Navy would never allow the Marines to own and control the whole package.

As for the FAA, let hope that reason prevails in the UK and something to replace the Invincible s gets built.


As they should insist. An all F-35B marine Corps means either less aircraft on carriers, expensive refits to carriers, F-35Bs launching off of the cat spots with a reduced load, or launching off of the fantail and disrupting flight ops. Of course, the DoN could also just cut Marine TACAIR funding and give it to the Navy.
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 516
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post29 Jul 2009, 17:37

spazsinbad wrote:Whatever the reason 'rolling landings' are a continuation of RN FAA expertise in STOVL ops. They think ahead and plan ahead. Don't make that a negative. The RN FAA stopped fixed wing carrier ops a long time ago. You have not considered what it would take to resurrect all that know how (gone and lost forever). They have the knowledge and will to make STOVL ops work for their benefit. And they will do it safely. They will work it out. No need to worry.


Rolling landings from the video are more or less a non-arrested trap. Its going to require training levels similar to arrested carrier landings.

Thumper3181 wrote:I agree about EMALS but the fact remains at 25 knots sustained and 26 knots max they would have had a hard time getting planes in the air under some circumstances. EMALS will also take a lot of electricity. This capacity has not been designed into the ships either. Bottom line, there will never be cats on these ships if built as envisioned.


CVF follows the British traditional of fitted for but not with to save money. The design has dedicated space for another MT30 or two and a steam boiler/generation for cats. Will never be fitted, but its there.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Jul 2009, 20:26

bjr1028, 'training levels similar to arrested landings' will be a doddle for the RN FAA pilots. No big deal. There will be a lot of computer help for such landings - there is a huge amount of computer help for vertical landings also as I understand how things work in the JSF-B. See the JSF simulator videos mentioned in other threads.

Rolling landings are an option for circumstances. Otherwise I would imagine that 'STOPping & LANDing' will be a preferred technique.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Jul 2009, 21:04

For Thumper3181: (regarding what USMC will get in regard to mix of JSFs)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... dline=Navy Backs Single Engine As F-35C Rolls Out

"Initial operational capability for the F-35C is scheduled for fiscal 2015. The Navy plans to buy 680 F-35s, but the mix between Cs and STOVL Bs for the U.S. Marine Corps will be determined by the Quadrennial Defense Review now under way, Roughead says. “The mix of Bs and Cs is part of the ongoing discussion.”

While the fleet mix may still be in flux, Roughead says “the aircraft must come in on time.” Even assuming F-35C deliveries begin on schedule, the Navy is looking at extending the life of about half of its Boeing F/A-18A-D fleet to minimize an expected fighter shortfall."
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Jul 2009, 23:44

NOT verbatim quote from a book (title to follow) regarding JSF-B [Dave] 'runny landings' on new RN carriers: "Have a great new book here which goes into that a bit - so far looks like 60 KIAS (ie an average of about 20-ish knots relative to deck, with an average 40 knots WOD) at touchdown. Deck travel will vary with load, but boffins think 90 to 120 feet will do the trick, and no problemmo for a/c brakes."

I do not have the book - relying on quote above from someone else. Here are book details:

A Century of Carrier Aviation by David Hobbs

Hardback 304 pages
ISBN: 9781848320192
Seaforth Publishing
Published: 4 March 2009

http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/?product_id=1850

"The detailed examination of the inventions that better enabled naval fixed
wing aviation are fascinating with the author writing from a position of
experience with some of the systems.

While the book is written from a British point of view, the US contribution
to carrier technology and development is not overlooked.

Written by a retired RN Fleet Air Arm pilot and award-winning historian of
naval flying, this is a masterly overview of the history of aviation in the
world's navies down to the present day. The book is heavily illustrated from
the author's comprehensive collection of photographs. Nearly all the images
are previously unseen.

This book is essential reading to anyone with an interest in naval air
power. It is truly the last word on aircraft carrier development. This book
cannot be recommended more highly.
The Navy Magazine - The Australian Navy League."
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post30 Jul 2009, 05:05

Spaz, no doubt the RN/RAF will sort out"rolling landings" with STOVL OPs and they will have an effective solution. I do however take issue with your insinuation that STOVL/rolling landings (STOSTL??) is going to be in some way superior to CATOBAR operations on a carrier. Lets not forget that this STOSTL scheme is nothing more than a "plan b" compromise. It is much less effective in terms of sortie rate, range, payload and platform. Further I have to agree with bjr1028, the rolling landing is in effect a conventional landing with reduced lift from the wings and no arresting hook. The British may well perfect it enough for operational use but it will require much skill and training to pull off with any degree of safety over the long haul. You claiming it will be "no big deal" is just plain wrong.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Jul 2009, 05:14

Thumper, I guess we can claim and counter claim. I happen to have some of my own NavAv experience. Without any other experience (unlike USN pilots for example) I was trained to deck land an A4G for the first time ever but with extensive shore based FCLP training beforehand. It was no big deal. It is only a problem in your air force mind to not be able to grasp NavAv. I don't mean to insult - just make a direct point. You can insult me back and then we will be square. OK? :-)

BTW I was basic flight trained by our AirForce so I really know how to do airforce landings as well. And they ain't like deck landings.

Arguing about something that is not going to happen seems futile. The RNers will use JSF-Bs and learn how to operate them in their NavAv environment to the best of their considerable abilities and experience. They invented this stuff after all.

And to think that 'runny landings' will be the only way the RN will operate is conjecture. Most likely given circumstances the quick vertical landing will be used. The RN will operate as safely as they can in circumstances of the day. Same as it ever was.
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post30 Jul 2009, 06:59

Your NAVAIR experience has no bearing here. Are you experienced in shipboard STOVL Ops? How many rolling landings have you done? In fact you have exactly the same real world experience as I in this which is zero.

I am not arguing about anything except to point out to you that STOVL Ops as the RN/RAF sees it is not an improvement in any way over CATOBAR Ops. It is a compromise forced upon them based on political and economic decisions made by their civilian leadership.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Jul 2009, 07:06

thumper, I have owned up to my experience and have stated that I'm in contact with former A4G pilots who went to the RN or exchanged with USMC - all flying Harriers. They have passed on some knowledge to me in a way that makes sense because of our shared experience (on A4G). If you have have downloaded the PDFs mentioned, there is a classic A4G to SHAR comparison report written by a pilot having flown both aircraft. That only goes part way to explain what I have gleaned over the years regarding STOVL ops.

Point taken: we share the same real world ZERO experience of STOVL ops as most forum members (unless they own up).

You can labour your point about CATOBAR ops being better than STOVL ops till the cows come home. I'm not listening - I have heard you. Countries that can afford conventional carrier aviation amount to three. US, France and Brazil. All the others operate Harriers or equivalent in some way (Russian). The RN will soon operate JSF-Bs. Lack of funds compromises every one including apparently the USofA. This is the real world.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post30 Jul 2009, 07:19

If France and Brazil can and do afford CATOBAR so could the UK. The fact that all countries have financial limitations has no bearing on this. The fact remains STOVL is a compromise and only the British are cheeky enough to try and claim it's some advantage. Buying a few less Typhoons and ditching the A400M would have easily freed up the funds for making the CVFs into proper carriers.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21189
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Jul 2009, 07:32

Thumper, I'm glad you have lead on this issue: Britain makes a mistake not going CATOBAR instead of STOVL. Whatever. In the cold reality that will descend on the RN FAA soon enough (given that their two new carriers survive the endless reviews between now and when they are ready to go; along with a suitable number of JSFs) these same exceptional airmen and their maintainers will do their darndest with their equipment. And improve upon as they have started to do already (running landing concept). Banging on about what might have been is silly.

Brazil operates A4s from the ex French carrier FOCH. These A4s will be upgraded to a better standard of weapon delivery and standard than their capability today. French carrier has a few problems to my knowledge but it seems irrelevant compared to USN carrier strength, along with USMC capability. The RN & USMC will cooperate well with the other JSF-B users in future. No worries.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests