F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

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

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post07 Jan 2018, 21:35

....trotting out the numbers;

Name: Izumo/ Name: USS Wasp
Type: Izumo-class helicopter destroyer, ASW carrier/ Class and type: Wasp-class amphibious assault ship
Displacement: 19,500t empty/ 27,000t full/ Displacement: 40,532t/ 41,182t full
Length: 814 ft/ Length: 844 ft
Beam: 125 ft/ Beam: 106 ft
Draft: 25 ft/ Draft: 26.5 ft

The ship carries up to 28 aircraft. However, only 7 ASW helicopters and 2 search and rescue (SAR) helicopters are planned for the initial aircraft complement. For other operations, 400 troops and 50 3.5 ton trucks (or equivalent equipment) can also be carried. The flight deck has 5 helicopter landing spots that allow simultaneous landings or take-offs. The ship is equipped with 2 Phalanx CIWS and 2 SeaRAM for its defense.
:)
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 202
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post07 Jan 2018, 23:53

marauder2048 wrote:That AvWeek article makes no sense: a 7% surcharge (FMS even at that time was ~5%) of
£150M implies an FMS cost of over £2.1 Billion which is absurd. The FMS long lead
for one EMALS/AAG shipset + logistics/support was all of $200M.


I think it was the AVWEEK writer who, trying to be helpful, deduced the $150 million figure by simply taking 7pct of the overall $2 billion cost to modify the ship and install the equipment. After all, why would completely revising the internal and external layout raise the cost? The cost of the EMALS/AAG, with or without the FMS surcharge, is a very small fraction of the cost to modify the ships once they were under construction.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 04:58

usnvo wrote:I think it was the AVWEEK writer who, trying to be helpful, deduced the $150 million figure by simply taking 7pct of the overall $2 billion cost to modify the ship and install the equipment. After all, why would completely revising the internal and external layout raise the cost? The cost of the EMALS/AAG, with or without the FMS surcharge, is a very small fraction of the cost to modify the ships once they were under construction.


The origin of the £150M figures is apparently the cost of the technical advice that GA recommended.
That and £577M for the EMALS/AAG shipset which is nearly as expensive as the shipset for the Ford class.
None of the above is strikes me as plausible. And I'm not the only one.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/197/197vw08.htm
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 05:20

....assume for a moment the Brits had gone forward with EMALS, what degree of modification would have had to be made to the QE ship's bow and flight deck to accommodate the two parallel EMALS, relative to the single/ serial launch Ski-jump? You might also consider the below deck electrical power systems.
:)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24778
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 05:27

marauder2048 wrote:
usnvo wrote:I think it was the AVWEEK writer who, trying to be helpful, deduced the $150 million figure by simply taking 7pct of the overall $2 billion cost to modify the ship and install the equipment. After all, why would completely revising the internal and external layout raise the cost? The cost of the EMALS/AAG, with or without the FMS surcharge, is a very small fraction of the cost to modify the ships once they were under construction.


The origin of the £150M figures is apparently the cost of the technical advice that GA recommended.
That and £577M for the EMALS/AAG shipset which is nearly as expensive as the shipset for the Ford class.
None of the above is strikes me as plausible. And I'm not the only one.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/197/197vw08.htm

:devil: Who is going to plough thru that load of old tosh again? How about some idea of quotes please - COME ON! :doh:

There is a VERY INFORMATIVE thread about CVF and "MoD in a MUDDLE" wot puts all this in perspective - why is it HERE!?

The CVFs are NOT POCKET CARRIERS as per this thread title. The ALSO RANS have 'pocket carriers' if that is what they are.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 05:52

IMHO, The STOVL vs. CATOBAR debate does lack credible cost information for
modern cats and traps (equipment + installation cost) for anything smaller than a CVN.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 08:45

marauder2048 wrote:IMHO, The STOVL vs. CATOBAR debate does lack credible cost information for
modern cats and traps (equipment + installation cost) for anything smaller than a CVN.


....so now that we are "NOT" talking cats and traps;

- is elevator load capacity at 1.5 x 46klbs. Per "Bee"; Length@50.5ft., width@35ft., height@15ft.; will it fit in the hanger bay?

- Is the deck plate adequate for travel/ positioning/tie down/launch? MTOW@60klb. Per the three gear wheels?

- perhaps stern deck plate thickening for (two) alternating LZs@20x20ft. Coated with Thermion; provided JPALS for precision (inches) landing! May be required for MV-22 landing, also.

- MADL comms.

- move perimeter obstacles from landing/ launch areas.

- what else?
:)
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 20:18

Any publicly available cost data on that equipment/mods?
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2549
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 22:14

Dokdo carrier mods are the story that won't quit...

South Korea is looking into an aircraft carrier full of F-35s, which would be a nightmare for Kim Jong Un
by Alex Lockie 8 Jan 2018


  • With a minor change, South Korea could turn its next small helicopter destroyer into a full-fledged aircraft carrier with a few F-35Bs.
  • The F-35B would provide unprecedented sea power.
  • South Korea would possibly have the ability to shoot down ballistic missile launches.

As tensions between the US, North Korea, and South Korea reach a fever pitch, military planners in Seoul are considering turning one of their small Dokdo-class helicopter carriers into an F-35B carrier.

"The military top brass have recently discussed whether they can introduce a small number of F-35B fighters" to new South Korean helicopter carrier ships, a military source told South Korea's Yonhap News Agency.

South Korea operates a small but capable navy featuring a single 14,000 ton helicopter carrier known as the ROKs Dokdo. Seoul is planning to build an additional two ships of this type, with the next expected to be ready in 2020.

The ships can support up to 10 helicopters. For scale, US Nimitz class aircraft carriers displace 100,000 tons and can support around 80 aircraft, both planes and helicopters.

But the F-35's Marine variant, the F-35B, isn't a regular plane. It can takeoff almost vertically and also land straight down. With minor adjustments to the already-planned aircraft building — mainly strengthening the runway material to withstand the friction and heat of jet engines landing — South Korea's small helicopter carriers could become potent F-35B carriers.

and some more blah blah blah -- read it at the jump

http://www.businessinsider.com/south-korea-aircraft-carrier-f-35-nightmare-kim-jong-un-2018-1
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 00:03

Even a few Bees just as mobile naval ISR tools would serve any nation that relies on sea lanes. In South Korea's case they could be like their naval AWACS watching North Korea off the coast for any unusual activity and they can then cue the Aegis or Thaad if necessary. How would the Norks even know they are being watched ? ;)

Six is fine for any helicopter carrier to turn it into a more potent naval asset. After all the existing orders are done I'm convinced the Alphas and Bees will continue to sell well in the export market, the Charlies not so much. I cannot think of a serious reason why any nation that has a coast would not want a small carrier fitted with Bees.

Think of all the F-15/F-16/F-18/F-4/F-5 that will eventually need replacing all around the world as well as all the old European planes. F-35 is going to sell at least 5k I tell you ;).
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 01:12

mas wrote:... I cannot think of a serious reason why any nation that has a coast would not want a small carrier fitted with Bees. Think of all the F-15/F-16/F-18/F-4/F-5 that will eventually need replacing all around the world as well as all the old European planes. F-35 is going to sell at least 5k I tell you ;).


...I agree with your sentiments but..., PCA is not that far away and the aircraft; structures, acutators, electricals, skins, engines, avionics systems and sensor technologies are very advanced after building the first 200+ F-35s. Now that we understand "How" the software "could" be developed, it may not take quite as long to prototype (size) the PCA. PCA could replace 1,000-1,500 of those 5K-ish F-35 sales.

Should the UAE be sold the F-35, that decision could break a dam and allow other countries to place FMS orders for the F-35s.
IMHO.
:)
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 01:37

Should ask the Australians that. I always thought the Bs was a logical fit for the canberras.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1299
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 02:46

weasel1962 wrote:Should ask the Australians that. I always thought the Bs was a logical fit for the canberras.


[Smirk on] Kick that dead horse again hard!!! I swear I saw it move !!!! [smirk off]

:doh:
(just saving Spaz another post),
BP
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24778
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 03:26

:devil: AND... :shock: getting in ONE MORE until that MAGIC NUMBER! :doh: :roll:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 03:47

blindpilot wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Should ask the Australians that. I always thought the Bs was a logical fit for the canberras.


[Smirk on] Kick that dead horse again hard!!! I swear I saw it move !!!! [smirk off]

:doh:
(just saving Spaz another post),
BP


....surely you jest!
:mrgreen:
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests