F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

[gtx]

Some thoughts on adding fixed wing aircraft to the Canberra Class LHDs here (starting on pg 27)

[spazsinbad]

References to same article above plus the entire special edition of the edition here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=271901&hilit=Boast#p271901

Attached is the Mark Boast article - five pages + cover

"...Mark Boast is a former naval aviator of 23 years experience in both the RAN [A4G Skyhawk] and RN. The majority of his flying was on the Sea Harrier where he was CO of the training squadron and operational evaluation unit. He was also an MOD staff officer for the Sea Harrier replacement and was involved in the concept development for JSF and CVF."

Source: http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/upl ... t-2010.pdf (3.2Mb)

[spazsinbad]

CARRIER-BORNE CLOSE AIR SUPPORT Historical and Contemporary perspectives
CMDR David Hobbs MBE, RN (Rtd) The NAVY Vol 72 No 4 Special Oct-Dec 2010

"...Historically, air forces have shown themselves to be the least joint of armed forces, the least adaptive to other people’s ideas and formed on the unsubstantiated political assumption that all future wars would be fought by them, making navies and armies obsolete. Experience shows the need for successful integration of ‘air’ into naval and military operations and questions the need for a third service to support the other two without fully comprehending their needs. The transfer of battlefield support helicopters from the RAAF to the Army Air Corps was a wise move that supports this view. The choice of future aircraft put forward by the RAAF is questionable and demonstrably follows an independent line. The LHDs are being built to a Spanish design with a ski-jump and their Spanish sister-ships are intended to operate the F-35B, STOVL, version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), itself designed to meet a US Marine Corps requirement to operate as CAS aircraft from US Navy LHDs. The RAAF wants ‘up to’ 100 JSF; to an outsider this offers a straightforward solution since the Australian Defence Force is buying the big deck ships and the CAS aircraft to operate from them. This is not the case since the RAAF insists on procuring the F-35A version of the JSF, designed for the US Air Force and incapable of operation from a carrier or providing support for a distant expeditionary operation. It is not clear why the Australian Government is considering buying an aircraft with such limited potential when it could get so much more for its money by taking a wider view. Air Force politicians will point out that airborne tankers and transport aircraft could relocate maintenance personnel, spare parts and ammunition to a ‘friendly’ air base near the scene of the action. As with the Hunters in Kuwait, however, this would buy up much of the tanker/transport force and prevent it from carrying out other tasks which would no doubt be given lower priority; an inward-looking RAAF view rather than working with others to achieve the best result in the national interest.

There are major issues with the cost of the JSF programme and the high cost of individual aircraft and the unknown cost of their support may deter many nations, including Australia, from buying it in the numbers they originally intended or at all. This is another area that has not yet been debated and deserves to be. The phenomenon of expensive front line aircraft is not new...."

Source: http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/upl ... t-2010.pdf (3.2Mb)

[blindpilot]

CARRIER-BORNE CLOSE AIR SUPPORT Historical and Contemporary perspectives
CMDR David Hobbs MBE, RN (Rtd) The NAVY Vol 72 No 4 Special Oct-Dec 2010

"...Historically, air forces have shown themselves to be the least joint of armed forces, the least adaptive to other people’s ideas and formed on the unsubstantiated political assumption that all future wars would be fought by them, making navies and armies obsolete. Experience shows the need for successful integration of ‘air’ into naval and military operations and questions the need for a third service to support the other two without fully comprehending their needs. ... Air Force politicians will point out that airborne tankers and transport aircraft could relocate maintenance personnel, spare parts and ammunition to a ‘friendly’ air base near the scene of the action. ...

Source: http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/upl ... t-2010.pdf (3.2Mb)

Air Forces least joint?

Spaz,
I can't speak for the RAF/RAAF, But in the US, post Vietnam, (actually post Grenada to be exact*) the Air Force has more and more become very joint focused.
My brother after leaving F-15's for a while to fly "jeeps" for the 82nd Airborne, worked with joint ops on JSTARS, and Air Land doctrine including joint A 10-AH 64 European employment. Even when returning to Eagles he was constantly working joint ops with the Army and Navy, especially when Group commander in Kuwait. Almost all ops were joint, whether mixing A10s with AV8s and AH's or coordinating F 16s/117s with F18s from carriers. I worked with US Space Command, and when flying missions worked with "Navy" on a few islands. All of that was integrated joint ops. Over half of his long and my short AF careers were shoulder to shoulder joint. So that's the background info where I sit.

Where I stand is, I may be wrong, and the USAF has been "stove piped," but I burned JP 5 with the JP 4/JP 7 a couple times, and in his assignments my bro played golf with Army and Navy ... um ... regularly. (Today he looks forward to playing golf with grand kids, but..) the US Air Force and Navy even now are working very hard on an integrated Air Sea concept of ops. (and the US Navy has its own AF)

- - "air forces have shown themselves to be the least joint" ??

Not necessarily. (at least post Grenada*) It doesn't have to be turf wars at the ops level ..

BP
* Grenada was a cluster fork that taught many folks how important it is to play nice together. People die when you don't.

A note about working with other services. My brother called personnel for immediate reassignment from the 82nd, when his 5 year old daughter told him, she wanted to grow up to be an "army man" like him. That became a bit too much joint coziness for him.

[spazsinbad]

Yes I thought that comment from the RNer (a very experienced pilot and historian of the RN) would be perhaps a little odd for airforces other than RAF/RAAF. RN/RAN call them 'crabs' for good reason (it has been explained earlier I think). Probably things in the UK and Oz have changed since I was a boy in the RAN and our author was a lad in the RN, however our experiences with the RAF/RAAF would no doubt shock anyone today. This history is probably not well known these days because - I have been told - that there is more 'jointness' in the ADF for example. I believe that claim and say 'good oh' there should have been a tonne of that 40 years ago. I'll not dwell on it though.

Probably the author knows his audience (Ozzians with a couple of ex-UKers - we used to call them 'whingeing poms') know the old history of last century only too well. As people here like to point to the past to make a point about one stealth bomber/fighter being shot down, and youngsters with scarfs and sheepskin coats and boots blasting away at one another with pistols, that we should not forget the past - well this is my moment - don't youse Oz youngsters of today forget what the lack of 'jointness' did to both the RN & RAN FAA (Fleet Air Arms during the 1970s and 1980s). I rest me case m'lud.

One further point if I may - the RAN has always (as a blanket statement) got along well with our ARMY. Our NAVY/ARMY teams will work well in and on our LHDs (a few RAAF types will be in air traffic control onboard apparently) - so there is that. There is even more hope with our Oz Crabs because in about a fortnight our entire ADF will be headed by an ex-A4G Skyhawk pilot from the RAN FAA of old BUT gone to the airforce necessarily when our fixed wing folded (that story elsewhere - search on BINSKIN) with the deputy being an RAN 'birdie' (Observer from helos) next to him. I'll wager the jointness will be there however changing cultures such as the toxic one that developed in the RAAF during my years in the RAN does not change quickly - but then again - what would I know.

[spazsinbad]

These PDF pages are the LHD & F-35B & Harrier excerpts from 22 June 2014 edition of ‘A Pictorial History of Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm Skyhawk A-4G & all other FAA Aircraft...’ PDF; + ‘How to Deck Land VL & SRVL style’ PDF with Harrier and F-35B examples. ON the SpazSinbad page on Microsoft OneDrive:

FOLDER: '__LHD & F-35B Info VL + Harrier':

URL: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD63D6 ... 0707E6!298

File Name: LHDs & F-35Bs + Harriers Info ONLY 22 June 2014 Excerpts.PDF (270Mb)

URL: http://1drv.ms/1ioph3s

[spazsinbad]

Osprey MV-22 on Juan Carlos I LHD test 18 Jun 2014:

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... annel%3Dsb

Osprey in JCI Hangar: http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/S ... ePath=/BEA Repository/Desktops/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/Pages/conocenos_noticias/00_noticias/2014/06/NT-116-OSPREY-EN-JCI_es/FOTO-02&maxWidth=400&maxHeight=1000

[lookieloo]

Not sure why Flight Global seems to think this is new news...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 5b-400661/
Australia reveals interest in F-35B

...Australia has long-stated a requirement for 100 air combat aircraft. However, because it acquired 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets in 2009-2010 as a bridging capability between the retirement of the General Dynamics F-111C and the introduction of the F-35A, it has deferred a decision on Phase 2C of the project until the early- to mid-2020s.

The F-35B proposal is being pushed by Abbott’s office, and if acquired the aircraft would be fielded from the Royal Australian Navy’s two new LHD-class vessels – the first of which is to be commissioned as HMAS Canberra later this year...

[popcorn]

Osprey MV-22 on Juan Carlos I LHD test 18 Jun 2014:

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... annel%3Dsb

Osprey in JCI Hangar: http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/S ... ePath=/BEA Repository/Desktops/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/Pages/conocenos_noticias/00_noticias/2014/06/NT-116-OSPREY-EN-JCI_es/FOTO-02&maxWidth=400&maxHeight=1000

Cool..,didn't know it fit in the elevator.

[spazsinbad]

As I recall vaguely (I'm not a VL person) a landing spot for the V-22 was designed into the LHD aft - I guess near the elevator.

Navantia | Strategic Projection Ship | LHD “Juan Carlos I”

" ...For its part, the runway has a 12° gradient or ski-jump afore to facilitate the takeoff of STOVL & to improve the loading capacity of fuel & weaponry....

...The flight deck has been designed to operate, launch, receive and provide support, both day and night, for planes and helicopters such as the third Squadron’s AB-212, the fifth Squadron’s SH-3D, and the ninth Squadron’s AV-8B Harrier II Plus. As well as the aircraft in service with the Navy, the ship is able to receive the Army’s CH-47 Chinook, Eurocopter Cougar and Tiger as well as the NH-90 when it enters into service with the Navy and with the Spanish Army.

In a significant qualitative leap, this ship is also designed to operate with the STOVL version of the JSF, the F-35B Lightning II, if the Spanish Navy decides to acquire this exceptional plane. A touchdown point has also been reserved astern of the flight deck that is specially adapted (in dimensions & resistance) for the special needs of the new V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

For the transfer of aircraft between the hanger and the flight deck, the Juan Carlos I has two elevators, each with a capacity of 25 tonnes and sufficient size to be able to carry up to the new F-35B Lightning II, or a helicopter the size of a Chinook. The capacity of the hangar is variable depending on the mission profile. This means an area of 1,000 m2 would be available for an amphibious type profile. This surface area could be increased by a further 2,046 m2, using the upper garage to have greater capacity for the aircraft. This means the hangar would reach 3,000 m2 for an aircraft carrier type profile. The hanger itself, situated further astern, can house up to 12 medium-sized helicopters. In the case of the LHD operating as a temporary aircraft carrier, the vehicles and material would be substituted by between 10 and 12 STOVL planes, as well as the dozen helicopters previously mentioned. In order to provide support for airborne operations, it is estimated that the ship has sufficient fuel, spare parts and arms so that the embarked aircraft could carry out their operations without the ship needing replenishment for up to a maximum of 50 days.

The planned airborne capacity is for her to transport and operate up to 30 aircraft including medium-sized and heavy helicopters in amphibious operation profiles, or between 10 and 12 F-35B planes or AV-8B+, plus a similar number of medium-sized helicopters when acting with an aircraft carrier mission profile at times when the Príncipe de Asturias R-11 is not operational....”

Source: http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfil ... pr/folleto LHD_marzo_para navantia_ingles.pdf

[KamenRiderBlade]

When aircraft are designed to fit on the elevators of these vessels, be it LHD or carrier, are they allow to hang parts of the aircraft off the edge to fit within specification?

I would assume no.

[spazsinbad]

I'm curious why you have this thought about lifts for flat decks. Is it random? Or is there something else specific about this question you have not revealed? I doubt that there are any flat deck lift designers here but if so I would be pleased for them to answer your question. Otherwise I can do some research which may or may not be fruitful.

Do we assume you refer to lifts which have at least one open side to the outside of the hull? Some lifts are completely internal with no open side. The LHD has one forward but I'll gather it is not an aircraft lift - however I'm not that familiar with our LHDs (ships are boring - I like aircraft).

The F-35B was designed to fit a number of aircraft aft of the island -without impacting the deck - which meant the wingspan had to be a certain maximum size according to the now well read I hope (but not remembered well because I do not) article about how the flat deck variants of the F-35 were designed for ship ops (and of course the A model is in with them also).

So to get back to your question we would have to assume you mean a lift with at least one open side? The USN/USMC LHAs have some lifts with three open sides. Aircraft for ships are designed to be stable in relatively rough seas. In the past too many aircraft, including the brake man and sometimes the pilot (acting as brake man) were lost overboard when they toppled off the lift, for whatever reason. Anyway here is the classic reference as mentioned:

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg

"...Geometric Compatibility
Probably the most intuitively obvious factor to influence the design of a ship-based aircraft is geometric compatibility.
Simply stated, the airplane must be of an acceptable size and shape to fit within the constrained operating spaces aboard ship....

...Unlike the CV variant, the JSF STOVL variant did not have a spot factor requirement levied upon it. Instead, the ORD specified a spotting requirement in operational terms. The USMC operators required that it be possible to park a total of six STOVL variants aft of the island on an LHA or LHD, such that none fouls the landing area and that any one of them can be moved without first moving any other. This requirement constrains the STOVL variant’s wingspan to be no
more than 35 ft.

OTHER GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS
Aside from the amount of flight deck space needed to accommodate an aircraft, there are several additional constraints
that affect its geometry. Aircraft are stored in hangar bays with constrained overhead clearances. The ceiling height must allow the conduct of all maintenance and support actions, including such tasks as the removal and replacement of the canopy and ejection seat. Additionally, compatibility with deck elevators may constrain an aircraft’s length, width, or both. Safe launch and recovery operations require sufficient separation from any deck obstacle, a criterion that often dictates the shape of an aircraft and the location of its wing pylons. Table 2 summarizes for each pertinent ship class the constraints imposed by the elevators and hangar dimensions...."

From TABLE 2 below:

"...Note: (1) CVN-68 and LHD [USN] are equipped with deck edge elevators that allow the extremities of an aircraft to extend beyond the elevator dimensions on the forward, aft, and/or outboard sides...."

CVS in this now dozen year old article refers only to the INVINCIBLE CLASS with UK Harriers.

NOW attached is perhaps a more easily readable PDF reformatted for wide screen viewing.

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf (1.1Mb)

[popcorn]

A new era is dawning for the Royal Navy. Looking forward to,the F-35B joining the celebrations.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -crew.html

[spazsinbad]

I wonder how big this bouncing baby will be - big enough for the B?

S’pore may buy large ship for use in disaster zones: Dr Ng
30 Jun 2014 Leong Wai Kit

"SINGAPORE: The Republic is considering buying a ship large enough to send more helicopters to disaster zones, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said.

Speaking to the media ahead of SAF Day on Tuesday, Dr Ng said the recent Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines underlined the need for a Joint-Multi-Mission Ship (JMMS).

"A larger JMMS would be able to carry more helicopters or have more helicopters operating. When we responded to Typhoon Haiyan...basically, the typhoon was so devastating that comms and communication were knocked out. There was no centralised ability for command and control of the airspace. In that context, a ship like the JMMS would have been very useful," he said...."

Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sin ... 22080.html

[lookieloo]

With so little land area available for basing, it only makes since to move some of their airpower out on the water is some way shape or form.