F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Mar 2013, 20:41

Brilliant Magic Stuff! Thanks for that 'beepa'. Watching tugs at work is always fascinating but those 'worker bees' in hyperanimation are just wonderful. :D As a cadet midshipman 47 years ago now I had the chance to pilot an RAN workboat at JB with Kitchener Gear (spelling may vary). What a delight.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

firstimpulse

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 314
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2012, 18:21

Unread post03 Apr 2013, 17:25

beepa wrote:Here is a new video of HMAS Adelaide under construction, gotta love time lapse!

http://youtu.be/n7K4sP29xFc


This makes you wonder that, if given a pressing wartime scenario, a properly equiped nation could churn out a "pocket carrier" every two or three months.

Incredible video.
Knowledge fuels imagination.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post04 Apr 2013, 00:48

I'm sure construction goes faster when you aren't building a one- or two-off ship class.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Apr 2013, 00:50

Why?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post04 Apr 2013, 00:57

Learning curve, parts pipeline, and specialized construction devices that aren't worth building if they are only going to be used once or twice.
The usual.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2639
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post17 Apr 2013, 07:16

Why is it that the UK won't design their carriers to be nuclear powered?

I know it's not a matter of capability, so why is it conventional powered?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Apr 2013, 08:30

You will get some good hits with this query (of course there can be many other Googlies): 'CVF Beedall Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier'

One Example: Future Aircraft Carrier - CVF
"...Propulsion
Historically, all warship over about 20,000 tonnes have been driven by steam turbines fed by steam from either oil burning boilers or nuclear reactors. Nuclear propulsion was briefly considered by the DPA in very early CVF studies but was rapidly discarded as being completely uneconomic, and steam boilers have also never seemed likely...."

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf3-2.htm
OR
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf6.htm
Offline

whitewhale

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012, 15:50

Unread post17 Apr 2013, 09:32

kamenriderblade wrote:Why is it that the UK won't design their carriers to be nuclear powered?

I know it's not a matter of capability, so why is it conventional powered?


Costs mainly both in initial development and maintenance, there are also political concerns a lot of the UK population and press are fairly anti-nuclear which always makes nuke powered vessels harder to justify to the masses, there also a fair few docks that dont allow nukes in but I believe that was a fairly minor concern.

As is the current set-up works out quite nicely, the Gas Turbines are small and compact located beneath the islands and take up no room in the core of the ship and despite weighing as much as all three invincible class carriers combined each CVF is actually more fuel efficient.

For comparison the 23,000t invincible was powered by four Olympus turbines (the same as what you find in the back of a concorde) and **8** Paxman v12 diesels. The 65,000t CVF is powered by two MT30's and four Wartsile diesels. When you have a very simple fuel efficient set-up provided by engines that boast remarkable reliability and proven service history then the KISS solution starts to look pretty good. Being a STOVL platform a high speed for WoD conditions isn't required.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Apr 2013, 09:49

Thanks 'whitewhale' and he said: "...Being a STOVL platform a high speed for WoD conditions isn't required." As it turns out having a higher than 'maximum 25 knots forward speed' may have proved useful for SRVL but keep in mind that high ship speed requires calmer waters (usually the case if NIL wind) but useful for SRVLs and 25 knots (if maintainable) is useful nevertheless. Always comes down to the money - of which the UK has little at moment. Info about engines follows soonish...

Turbines generate excitement Lee Hibbert 02 Apr 2013

"The process of building the Navy’s new aircraft carriers has reached a key stage with the installation of the mighty gas turbines"

http://profeng.com/features/turbines-ge ... excitement

http://profeng.com/features/turbines-ge ... ent/page:2
Attachments
CVFpropulsionChart.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

whitewhale

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012, 15:50

Unread post17 Apr 2013, 10:34

Unfortunately the slighter higher speed of the initial concept was lost when the designed was rescaled and adjusted to be cheaper before SRVL was a consideration, another element damaged by government interference.

On the plus side with a slight breeze and a high thrust into the wind SRVL is still doable even if no longer ideal, most believe that the CVF will do around 28 knots on full burn which should provide some degree of usefulness.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Apr 2013, 10:51

'whitewhale' 25 knots if sustainable in operational conditions is a good speed for sure. Just making a point about 'higher speed' would have been nice - but problematic in certain sea conditions. Useful to know that perhaps CVF can go a bit faster if required. For a flat deck at sea any breeze is always good. HMAS Melbourne for example would spend a lot of time searching for the slightest breeze in the South China Sea doldrums just to have that little bit extra for catapulting. Wind lanes on a calm glassy sea surface are easy to spot in the distance so the carrier would head over there - hoping to catch whatever wind was available for catapulting. Landing was more or less on a known course in NIL wind - no chance to chase wind during recoveries because a steady course is required (not always achieved if the ship turns out of wind - especially at night - in error, which happened a few times to S-2E/G pilots on approach. Fishheads are fun people.). :-) :roll:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 May 2013, 10:48

Wonder if this old girl can be 'upgraded' to take a bunch o'F-35Bs? Do not have the specs handy right now and I guess it will all depend on the state of the 'Princess' and what it might take moneywise to get her going again. Old ships are rusty if nothing else...

Several countries interested in buying ex-Spanish Navy Aircraft Carrier Principe de Asturias 26 May 2013
"According to rumors that emerged recently in the Spanish press, the Philippines as well as several Arab countries have expressed interest in purchasing the former Spanish Navy Aircraft Carrier Principe de Asturias. In case of a sale, the contract would include refit and upgrading of the vessel by Spanish shipyard Navantia.

It is reported that Indonesia already expressed interest in the vessel earlier this year. Following an official visit by TNI AL (Indonesian Navy) delegation to the El Ferrol naval base however, Indonesia decided not to purchase the aircraft carrier.

Principe de Asturias was officially decommissioned in February 2013, with the initial intention to dismantle it for scrap. However this initial plan changed when Spanish Ministry of Defense reportedly received several requests for the aircraft carrier from several countries. Spanish Navy confirmed that there are potential buyers, but has yet to materialize any sales transaction."

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=1059
Attachments
Principe_De_Asturias_R11_Spanish_Aircraft_Carrier_Navy.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

whitewhale

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012, 15:50

Unread post27 May 2013, 18:18

If memory serves and it may be wrong in this regard but the Principe de Asturias's lifts and hangers are not large enough to accommodate the F35 or the aircrafts extra weight over the harrier. Putting F35's on the invincibles would have been a very very tight squeeze and a logistical nightmare. The vinces are 5,000t heavier, 12m wider and 13m longer then the PDA. Harriers are just about the only option for fixed wing use from that ship iam afraid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOTILXRqfk4

Very chilled video of onbaord ops but really demonstrates how size limited she is.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24090
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 May 2013, 22:39

Thanks 'whitewhale'. A short video here also:

Portaaviones «Príncipe de Asturias» (2005)
"Uploaded on July 22, 2009
Feature engraved to mark the Armed Forces Day 2005 in A Coruña, issued in the public television news state."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFoK3kO5f84
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post28 May 2013, 06:43

That's too bad about the PDA. However, it is nice that the F-35B could make carriers a more doable/attractive prospect for a wider range of American allies... that is assuming there are any left willing to take on their fair-share of security burdens. Japan and South Korea come to mind, as do a few nations lapped by the Baltic/North Sea.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], jessmo112, ricnunes and 13 guests