F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 13:59
by 1st503rdsgt
I've stated in previous posts that one of the F-35B's good points is the capability it offers to US allies who've been shut out of front-line naval TACAIR for decades by the high costs of CATOBAR ships and operations.


While discussing this recent article on LHA-6 AMERICA over on Spaz's long thread, http://defense.aol.com/2012/10/03/navys ... ous-ships/ I started thinking:

-How many of the non-US flat-decks already out there could actually be adapted to the F-35B? (perhaps not that many)

-Would any countries without carriers consider investing in such assets if the F-35B proves workable?

-What would be the minimum size for a useful Bee carrier?

-How would a dozen or so non-US Bee carriers change the international security picture?

RE: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 14:28
by spazsinbad
Britain, Spain & Italy have 'designed for F-35B' ski jump carriers of varying sizes with the Brit CVF being the largest. The F-35B is large and heavy - decks, lifts, hangars must be able to accommodate it so some smaller flat decks are likely not to be suitable. However this does not rule out occasional cross decking in emergency situations; but not otherwise for sustained ops. For example on these cross decking excursions it is likely a low fuel F-35B will VL for some appropriate small amount of fuel to STO for recovery back to 'mother' (home flat deck) and on with the show.

A useful size for an F-35B flat deck operator would be one that accommodates the KPPs (with or without ski jump).

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 15:14
by neptune
1st503rdsgt wrote:...recent article on LHA-6 AMERICA ....


The Spanish LHD Juan Carlos; has a flight deck of 202 metres (663 ft), with a "ski-jump" ramp. The ship's flight deck has eight landing spots for Harrier, F-35B JSF .. The ship can carry up to 30 aircraft in aircraft carrier mode, using the light vehicles bay as an additional storage zone.

Australia has contracted the Aussie LHDs Canberra and Adelaide based on the design of the Juan Carlos and at nearly 28K tons, the LHDs are the largest Aussie ships.

Australia is purchasing two F-35A from LRIP6 to be delivered in 2015.

Re: RE: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 15:17
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Britain, Spain & Italy have 'designed for F-35B' ski jump carriers of varying sizes with the Brit CVF being the largest. The F-35B is large and heavy - decks, lifts, hangars must be able to accommodate it so some smaller flat decks are likely not to be suitable. However this does not rule out occasional cross decking in emergency situations; but not otherwise for sustained ops. For example on these cross decking excursions it is likely a low fuel F-35B will VL for some appropriate small amount of fuel to STO for recovery back to 'mother' (home flat deck) and on with the show.

A useful size for an F-35B flat deck operator would be one that accommodates the KPPs (with or without ski jump).


So it's like madrat said, around 20K tons, but there is this old blurb about the new Korean LPHs, which are somewhat smaller. http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... t-for.html

Of course, I'm not sure if the support structures you mentioned are present (or even possible) on these ships.

The same goes for Japan's Hyuga-class http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... /ddh-x.htm and upcoming 22DDH-class, http://www.defencetalk.com/details-of-n ... yer-27119/ for which the links respectivly speculate on F-35B use.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 15:22
by 1st503rdsgt
neptune wrote:The Spanish LHD Juan Carlos; has a flight deck of 202 metres (663 ft), with a "ski-jump" ramp. The ship's flight deck has eight landing spots for Harrier, F-35B JSF .. The ship can carry up to 30 aircraft in aircraft carrier mode, using the light vehicles bay as an additional storage zone.

Australia has contracted the Aussie LHDs Canberra and Adelaide based on the design of the Juan Carlos and at nearly 28K tons, the LHDs are the largest Aussie ships.

Australia is purchasing two F-35A from LRIP6 to be delivered in 2015.


Shhhhh, no one in Oz is even supposed to think what you're implying! :wink:

RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 20:03
by spazsinbad
Oz LHD is 27,000 tons to be kind. NOT 20,000. Now that tonnage would appear to be a good start point don't you think? And there is no 'nod nod, wink wink' about operating F-35Bs from Oz LHDs because they will only cross deck as explained. What MAY happen in future is a third/fourth LHD specifically outfitted for operating F-35Bs but both 'this special LHD and F-35Bs' not planned.

Forget about a sub 20,000 ton flat deck. Probably starting from 27,000 is more reasonable. This flat deck must be designed to operate F-35Bs or similar from the get go.

RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 20:27
by megasun
Japan is building 22DDH, we'll see if they purchase any Bee variant.

RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 20:38
by maus92
It will be interesting to see what kinds of modifications will be necessary to operate and support F-35 class aircraft on legacy platforms. The LHA America class and the CVN Ford class have been designed with the F-35 in mind. Older LHAs and CVNs will require changes to flight decks, hanger spaces and mx shops to accommodate the F-35 and its F135 engine and composite skins.

RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 20:47
by spazsinbad
AFAIK the modifications to legacy USN flat decks are minimal. Already there has been some mention of the changes with costs (on this forum?). For existing CVNs I don't believe there are specifics yet. Any new aircraft onboard requires some modifications/changes however the aircraft has been designed from the beginning to fit aboard legacy flat decks. There may well be specifics - I'll gargle it NOT.

BTW probably the FINAL 4.4GB PDF about these and other matters (RAN FAA Fixed Wing) includes F-35 material and flat decks is available at SkyDrive:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD63D6 ... 0707E6!296

Probably in a few days a new "how to deck land" excerpts PDF will be uploaded (made from this 4.4GB PDF with perhaps additions). A specific F-35 PDF may follow but who knows. Already older versions are available on SpazSinbad SkyDrive web page:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6 ... =822839791

RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2012, 22:51
by spazsinbad
South Korea: Asia’s Other Rising Naval Power By Dr. Robert Farley, October 2, 2012

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog ... val-power/

"...Similary, the Dokdo class amphibious warships suggest a maritime focus extending well beyond the Korean Peninsula. Like many amphibious warships, the 18,000 ton Dokdo strongly resembles a small aircraft carrier. As British and French operations in Libya last year demonstrated, amphibious warships can become strike vessels through the addition of attack helicopters. Although South Korea does not currently participate in the F-35B project, the prospect of flying the STOVL fifth generation fighter from Dokdo (or potentially from Dokdo’s successors) undoubtedly appeals to some South Korean defense planners. However, even if the tremendous expense of acquiring and operating such fighters proves daunting, the light carriers could someday employ Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) optimized for strike and reconnaissance roles. In any case, the Dokdos give South Korea a plausible expeditionary capability.

South Korea’s robust shipbuilding industry (the world’s largest) helps support and underwrite the ROKN’s expansion and modernization. Four Dokdos and six KD-IIIs are planned, although actual construction may not match these numbers. If it does, however, this would represent one of the most potent naval warfare squadrons in the world, potentially capable of conducting many different missions in the region...."

I'll put my money on a successor to DOKDO (even if similar) operating F-35Bs in South Korean waters one day. Maybe Oz can buy one or two DOKDO successors on the cheap? :D

Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 00:02
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:..the modifications to legacy USN flat decks are minimal. ...


With the Spanish LHD Juan Carlos designed to support the F-35B, what would be required to modify the Australian LHD Canberra and Adelaide to support the operations of the F-35B? :?:

The stealthy, ISR fast jet flying off the LHD would greatly increase the range of enhanced intelligence across Australia's area of influence, This would be as an alternative to the slightly slower and less stealthy ISR platform, Wedgetail. And of course, the commonality with their F-35A fleet.

The LHDs are of similar design and their hulls, ski-jumps and main decks are manufactured by the Navantia Shipyards in Ferrol, Galicia, Spain.

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 01:20
by spazsinbad
'neptune' your sentiments re Oz LHDs and F-35Bs are appreciated by me but as discussed quite a bit on the 'very long thread' about such issues it seems that apparent from no 'obvious' changes there are many internal changes (compared to original Spanish design) in the Oz LHD that mitigate against having F-35Bs on Oz LHDs. The internal changes for Oz LHDs are to maximise use of current intended aircraft and support structures for Oz mission. Nothing will stop cross decking as described. My hope is that the 'penny will drop' in the same way 'the other shoe drops' so that it is realised how beneficial a dedicated flat deck for F-35B ops for Oz will be. Does not have to be another LHD and may well be an improved DOKDO class designed for such use. Whatever. This development would be some years away however.

The USMC F-35Bs will jump at the chance to go de jump de ski on our LHDs off Darwin or WA or even Sydney Harbour when they visit. They will make a big splash but not in the literal sense. :D I was hoping that the Brits would continue with one CVF for F-35Cs selling the other CVF to Oz to pay for it. Sadly this eventually was denied us but it will be beneficial to see/learn from not only the USMC but now the Brits jump jump jumping for joy.

Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 07:21
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:I'll put my money on a successor to DOKDO (even if similar) operating F-35Bs in South Korean waters one day. Maybe Oz can buy one or two DOKDO successors on the cheap? :D


Wait... what? Why would that be better than the ships you're about to get?

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 07:30
by spazsinbad
Oz LHDs or Spanish LHDs are just that. A properly built (by experienced South Korean shipbuilders) 'modified DOKDO flat deck suitable for F-35B use' is what I'm talking about. I guess it would be the BIG version with mods for F-35B use - whatever they may be and praise the lord and pass the ammunition a bleedin' ski jump! If a properly modified for F-35B LHD built by Spanish is better then by all means - buy it.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 08:14
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Oz LHDs or Spanish LHDs are just that. A properly built (by experienced South Korean shipbuilders) 'modified DOKDO flat deck suitable for F-35B use' is what I'm talking about. I guess it would be the BIG version with mods for F-35B use - whatever they may be and praise the lord and pass the ammunition a bleedin' ski jump! If a properly modified for F-35B LHD built by Spanish is better then by all means - buy it.


Besides looks perhaps, I'm not really seeing the difference between an enlarged Dokdo and the Juan Carlos ships. They're both well-deck assault ships, difference being that the Spanish design is ready to go with or without F-35s.

That's not to say the Koreans couldn't build a more purposeful carrier design if they wanted to, but I wouldn't consider it a Dokdo successor (about which I haven't heard any plans).

Perhaps you're referring to Japan's Hyuga-class successor, which doesn't have a well-deck and is a good-deal faster to boot. I also noticed that this design includes a rather large deck-edge elevator. Here's a CGI comparison with the Hyuga: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... h-pics.htm

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 09:24
by spazsinbad
For a start Australia is not looking for a 3rd or any other flat deck ship for the time being. So in my book any thing goes. Best if Australia is going to operate F-35Bs (and this is not planned either) then a purpose designed for F-35Bs flat deck ship is best with a running mate also. However first things first. For the RAN and ADF in general the introduction of the two LHDs is a really big deal game changer. It will take some time to adjust. After that - who knows. Australia has a population of around 22 million with an huge land mass and sea boundaries with associated islands and waterways to patrol. We take it all one step at a time; unless of course the local environment changes dramatically.
________________

“...the Australian Defence Force's primary operating environment extends from the eastern approaches of the Indian Ocean to the island states of Polynesia and from the equator to the Southern Ocean.

"This area encompasses 25,000 islands, 85,000km of navigable waterways....”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6277605880

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 10:03
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:For a start Australia is not looking for a 3rd or any other flat deck ship for the time being. So in my book any thing goes. Best if Australia is going to operate F-35Bs (and this is not planned either) then a purpose designed for F-35Bs flat deck ship is best with a running mate also. However first things first. For the RAN and ADF in general the introduction of the two LHDs is a really big deal game changer. It will take some time to adjust. After that - who knows. Australia has a population of around 22 million with an huge land mass and sea boundaries with associated islands and waterways to patrol. We take it all one step at a time; unless of course the local environment changes dramatically.


The Canberras will be great for what Oz wants them to do, namely, moving lots of *stuff* from place to place. As for purpose designed Bee carriers, that's a heady prospect, especially since Japan, Korea, and Oz haven't seen the obvious advantages of cooperation in ship construction and design. You Westpacs need to work together more.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carrie

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 10:24
by spazsinbad
We can't wait to have you organise us all.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Ca

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 10:53
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:We can't wait to have you organise us all.


Indeed you can't. You need to do it yourselves... for yourselves. China would be a lot easier to control if the 3-y'all weren't always quibbling over whales and barren rocks. Oz has the material, Japan has the tech, Korea has the yards; figure something out.

Perhaps something along the lines of Italy's Cavour (which the 22DDH kinda is) would work. 4-6 such ships in the Pacific along with 6 American CVNs (and a few gators) would be a real headache for the PLAN to keep up with.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocke

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 12:37
by spazsinbad
Oz is not quibbling over barren rocks in mid oceans. If you read SLDinfo we will be motivated by a rotating bunch of Marines that sometimes will demonstrate F-35Bs from 'end of the line' LHAs. Wot a Bleedin' Liberty! We will get the message.

By the by, I see only another shipbuilder and Oz sorting out what needs to be built for an F-35B specific flat deck. We buy stuff from all over.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-US) P

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 13:16
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:...we will be motivated by a rotating bunch of Marines that sometimes will demonstrate F-35Bs from 'end of the line' LHAs.


As might the others, hopefully... (sorry about the gross oversimplification of Japanese/Korean/Australian relations)

I also wonder if that would motivate a few countries West of Suez. Some of the Baltic/North Sea nations were rather upset when France agreed to sell amphibs to Russia. Even Canida might need to start re-thinking its naval strategy with the arctic melting.

Basically, I'm hoping the F-35B will make the USNs job easier by making it less-expensive for others to do at least some of the work.

BTW, how are the Canberras coming? I know one of the hulls is floating, but that's about it.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-35B (Non-U

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 15:35
by popcorn
IIRC,,some people,have questioned the ability of the F-35B to operate West of,Suez..LOL

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 18:01
by spazsinbad
The first in class is on the way to Australia aboard another vessel. Yeah East of Sewers and Beyond the Black Stump is really dangerous for Ozian Vessels, that is why we won't see CVFs out here dununder but perhaps the odd LHA every now and then. :twisted:

Australia’s Newest Helicopter Carrier Slowly Making Its Way Down Under September 15, 2012

http://shipwreckology.com/2012/09/15/au ... own-under/

http://shipwreckology.files.wordpress.c ... nberra.jpg
____________

LHD 01 Departs Spain, Australia Bound
By Australian Department of Defence on Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012

http://www.defencetalk.com/lhd-01-depar ... und-44290/

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 19:36
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:The first in class is on the way to Australia aboard another vessel


Spaz, it's just killing me to look at that beautiful ship. What the hell is Oz thinking? For God's sake, it has a ski-jump, you're already a partner in the F-35 program... WHY'S IT SO DAMNED HARD TO TAKE THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP?!

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 19:45
by spazsinbad
This issue has been done to death on the very long thread. Back in 1984 RAN FAA Fixed Wing died, a few years earlier our only aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne was scrapped. Resurrecting a fixed wing flat deck capacity for the RAN will take more than 'why is it so damned hard' exclamations. Be patient grasshopper! :D

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 19:55
by neptune
1st503rdsgt wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:...TO TAKE THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP?!


I think he has intimated it is that crawl, stand, walk, run thing! :)

As frustrating as it is, we all had to do it!

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 20:05
by spazsinbad
See:

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 21:24
by exheadshedguy
Both this and the remarkably long thread on the ADF LHDs have some interesting comments. Spaz, your source on the internal configuration of the ships is incorrect, as the mods are very minimal. The biggest was to the sickbay, and there was/is no degradation of aviation support spaces in any compartments. Modifying them for F-35Bs would be a minor matter, done during scheduled refit without excessive time considerations. Re-establishing embarked fixed wing, however, would require long lead times. Finally, I have no idea whatever of where your comments about the RN CVFs being denied to the ADF came from, nor that they will never deploy east of Suez. Your first point would raise innumerable eyebrows at Russell Hill, I assure you. Also, the old Invincibles in Sea Harrier days visited Australia six times, and they did all sorts of noisy work in the Gulf, and there is no reason to think that the new ships won't follow that pattern. All said and done, there is no consideration at any level in Canberra for even thinking about putting fast air back to sea in the ADF, let alone asking for a position paper, or, indeed anything else.

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 21:27
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:This issue has been done to death on the very long thread. Back in 1984 RAN FAA Fixed Wing died, a few years earlier our only aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne was scrapped. Resurrecting a fixed wing flat deck capacity for the RAN will take more than 'why is it so damned hard' exclamations. Be patient grasshopper! :D


Yeah, I know... but I still find the Western-Pacific's carrier situation frustrating. I just don't see why the USN has to (for the foreseeable future) provide all the non-Chinese naval airpower in the area when there are plenty of other countries with the economic wherewithal to support at least one F-35B carrier and task force.

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 21:53
by 1st503rdsgt
exheadshedguy wrote:All said and done, there is no consideration at any level in Canberra for even thinking about putting fast air back to sea in the ADF, let alone asking for a position paper, or, indeed anything else.


In that case, I'm curious as to why the Spanish design was selected over the Mistral class, which is a good deal cheaper and has all the capabilities you intend to use.

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2012, 23:58
by neptune
1st503rdsgt wrote:[.... I'm curious as to why the Spanish design was selected over the Mistral class, which is a good deal cheaper and has all the capabilities you intend to use.


..it doesn't have the sexy ski-jump! :wink:

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 00:41
by spazsinbad
exheadshedguy wrote:Both this and the remarkably long thread on the ADF LHDs have some interesting comments. Spaz, your source on the internal configuration of the ships is incorrect, as the mods are very minimal. The biggest was to the sickbay, and there was/is no degradation of aviation support spaces in any compartments. Modifying them for F-35Bs would be a minor matter, done during scheduled refit without excessive time considerations. Re-establishing embarked fixed wing, however, would require long lead times. Finally, I have no idea whatever of where your comments about the RN CVFs being denied to the ADF came from, nor that they will never deploy east of Suez. Your first point would raise innumerable eyebrows at Russell Hill, I assure you. Also, the old Invincibles in Sea Harrier days visited Australia six times, and they did all sorts of noisy work in the Gulf, and there is no reason to think that the new ships won't follow that pattern. All said and done, there is no consideration at any level in Canberra for even thinking about putting fast air back to sea in the ADF, let alone asking for a position paper, or, indeed anything else.


Perhaps you have not read through the 'very long thread' enough. My other comments were tongue-in-cheek if not downright cheeky but in the context of this forum 'funny' enough. Anyways the VLT is here:

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12631.html

I'm not privy to any internal LHD details whilst eventually having to accept the comments of 'someone from somewhere' claiming to know. I do NOT claim to know NOR care at this point. What will be will be. IF you find the VLT too much then by all means start a new thread about how easy it will be (apart from the long lead time and no perceived interest - you say) for F-35Bs to operate from our Oz new LHDs. Please provide more details as you will gather by reading the VLT (OK you can skim a lot of the repetiitive nature of it) that I myself have a keen interest.

'East of Suez' is a term coined by the UK specifically used by Sharkey Ward to forewarn that the F-35B he knows (not the one I claim to know) will not be able to perform a KPP VL in that region. This term crops up in the:

UK MOD in a MUDDLE over F-35C
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... uddle.html

Searching for 'Suez' will get a hit here:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... uez#223139

I have respect for the Sharkey Ward during his Falklands War times but these days it seems he has gone senile as illustrated by the 'birther movement' reposts on his website. YouseMMV (YMMV). :twisted:

Interesting factoid indeed that the 'through deck cruisers' visited Oz 6 times.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 00:45
by spazsinbad
'1st503rdsgt' said: "In that case, I'm curious as to why the Spanish design was selected over the Mistral class, which is a good deal cheaper and has all the capabilities you intend to use." Care to provide details please? Thanks.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 01:14
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:'1st503rdsgt' said: "In that case, I'm curious as to why the Spanish design was selected over the Mistral class, which is a good deal cheaper and has all the capabilities you intend to use." Care to provide details please? Thanks.


These are all the details I see that matter.

Mistral has:

-A large flight deck

-A hanger

-A well deck

The basics are there. I'm not really sure what shortcomings it had to get passed-over in favor of the Juan Carlos.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 01:15
by spazsinbad
How much cheaper is Mistral compared to LHD?

My only recourse for the other commonalities would be an internet search via Google.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 01:26
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:How much cheaper is Mistral compared to LHD?

My only recourse for the other commonalities would be an internet search via Google.


My understanding is that the Canberras are about $1.5bil a piece (don't know if that's US or not). The Mistrals are about $400-600mil per copy.

I read somewhere that the Mistrals are cheap because they're only built to commercial standards and might not last as long as a typical warship that size, but I don't really know. Maybe it couldn't handle Chinooks.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 01:29
by spazsinbad
Why do you have a concern now what it is? Please explain. :D

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 01:45
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Why do you have a concern now what it is? Please explain. :D


It's not concern, it's confusion.

If you're planning to buy an amphibious assault ship that is "absolutely, positively, immutably" NEVER going to have its own fixed-wing component... why not go with the much cheaper boat that has the basics of what you DO want?

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 01:49
by count_to_10
1st503rdsgt wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Why do you have a concern now what it is? Please explain. :D


It's not concern, it's confusion.

If you're planning to buy an amphibious assault ship that is "absolutely, positively, immutably" NEVER going to have its own fixed-wing component... why not go with the much cheaper boat that has the basics of what you DO want?

So, you are wondering if they are trying to sneak in STOVL capability?

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 01:50
by spazsinbad
Sorry I have no idea. There will be official explanations on government websites about why the LHD was chosen over the Mistral but from memory details were scarce. If you are looking for some 'long term conspiracy' about having F-35Bs on LHDs then there are hints (or speculation) in the public media. AFAIK these are in the VLT already. I'm only a civilian with no inside knowledge of whys and wherefores except whatever is in the public domain. However 'jungle drums' tell me that of course there is an interest in F-35Bs and that also is in the VLT. For myself I'm tired of it though. My interest will be when there is more public speculation in OzLand about such matters. I predict when we see LHAs in our waters as mentioned many times now already - even. :D Missed it by that much.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 12:01
by 1st503rdsgt
Here's an interesting little piece. Given the global economic crisis (especially in Europe); and in light of the fact that STOVL carriers are dependant on an out-of-production jet for their fixed-wing component, the author is demanding that Boeing "dust off" AV-8B plans in order to "spoil the F-35B’s fruit..." his rationale being that "ANY DAMAGE OR FURTHER INSECURITY YOU [Boeing] CAN CAUSE THE F-35 PROGRAM IS A WIN FOR YOU [Boeing]" (his caps, not mine).

http://aviationintel.com/2012/01/10/ita ... is-boeing/

Here's the video he was trying to post. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tMVnPR ... r_embedded

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 12:29
by popcorn
Given that Boeing is counting on prospective customers to fund further development of the F-15SE and F-18SH "International" variant - unsuccessfully so far - it's not likely they would spend money on an updated Harrier w/o a firm customer commitment.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 12:37
by 1st503rdsgt
popcorn wrote:Given that Boeing is counting on prospective customers to fund further development of the F-15SE and F-18SH "International" variant - unsuccessfully so far - it's not likely they would spend money on an updated Harrier w/o a firm customer commitment.


Agreed. Plus, I doubt the AV-8B would entice more countries into carrier aviation, as one hopes the F-35B might.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 15:11
by madrat
spazsinbad wrote:'East of Suez' is a term coined by the UK specifically used by Sharkey Ward to forewarn that the F-35B he knows (not the one I claim to know) will not be able to perform a KPP VL in that region.


Luckily there really is no scenario that they would be involved in that required only the assets on a QE/PoW type of carrier. They will have land based assets and the aid of the USN CVN's in any major regional conflict.

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 01:12
by 1st503rdsgt
madrat wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'East of Suez' is a term coined by the UK specifically used by Sharkey Ward to forewarn that the F-35B he knows (not the one I claim to know) will not be able to perform a KPP VL in that region.


Luckily there really is no scenario that they would be involved in that required only the assets on a QE/PoW type of carrier. They will have land based assets and the aid of the USN CVN's in any major regional conflict.


There are scenarios for everything, a number of which the US would prefer to stay clear of, if only for political reasons. For example, if a situation in the mid-east were to call for a NATO maritime aviation presence, it might be less provocative for the region if French, British, and Italian carriers handled it (provided things don't get too intense).

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 06:51
by spazsinbad
Probably the best recent article about potential F-35Bs for LHDs with an urge to plan baby PLAN! http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ens#207563

Big Ships, Big Challenge By Alan Stephens, Deputy Chairman | Oct 2011
The Sir Richard Williams Foundation

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/si ... 202011.pdf (49Kb)

"...Whatever the government and the ADF might be saying now, it is certain that, as the in-service date for the LHDs grows closer, calls to acquire STOVL F-35Bs for the Fleet Air Arm will increase. There’s nothing wrong with that; on the contrary. But we do need to understand the issues.

Any one of the challenges outlined above warrants serious attention; in combination, they constitute a compelling case for action at almost every level of Defence planning."

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 23:42
by marksengineer
Have USMC Harriers ever cross-decked with other Navies?

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2012, 23:50
by spazsinbad
Yes. I believe there are stories about such cross-decking on several threads in this very forum. The VLT (Very Long Thread A.K.A. 'Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC') would be one as well as several about 'ski-jumps', 'UK MOD in a Muddle' and whatnots. There is one notable story about the USMC pilots ski jumping for the first time and absolutely being sold on it. But don't tell the USN.

STROLL down to BTM of de page:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... %99#224217

Not to forget that in the dark ages USMC AV-8As cross-decked aboard HMAS Melbourne somewhere off the N.E. Coast of Oz c.1980?

NOT to FORGET of course the earlier USS F.D.R. AV-8A 1976-7 trials which were successful - also story on the VLT and probably elsewhere by now (UKmodMuddle). Such a good story worth repeating here:

AV-8A Harrier Tests [onboard USS F.D.R. 1976-7]

http://ussfranklindroosevelt.com/?page_id=2264

“...Her [USS F.D.R.] final cruise, which concluded on 21 April 1977, included the embarkation of AV-8A Harriers of Marine Attack Squadron (VMA) 231, the historic “Ace of Spades” squadron, marking the first deployment of Vertical Short Take Off and Landing aircraft on board a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier....”
&
“...From June 1976 to April 1977, VMA-231 deployed with 14 AV-8As aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CV-42). This deployment demonstrated that the Harrier could be completely integrated into normal CV air operations. Almost every conceivable takeoff & recovery option was flown: upwind, downwind, crosswind, and before, during, and after re-spots. The Harrier demonstrated not only that VSTOL operations could be conducted within the rigid framework of cyclic operations, but that because of VSTOL’s inherent flexibility, a carrier can launch & recover at any time and steam wherever desired while achieving a combat capability that does not exist when using only conventional aircraft. A STOVL jet is unrestrained by launch/recovery times & mission permitting, could fill in gaps created by the CV cycle. On 13 January 1977, two other Harriers made bow-on approaches and landing aboard the carrier, marking the first time a fixed wing aircraft had made a bow-on, downwind landing aboard a carrier at sea....”

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 04:26
by madrat
I'd like to see them use an S-curve catapult launch from an offboard rail system. Use a combination of steam/emals and gravity to essentially ski jump. Not only that but you could attach the aircraft to its rail link from a vantage point that isn't obstructing the top deck and not exposed to weather effects. The tri hull design (ala Littoral Combat Ship) would allow you room to launch through the hollow areas between hulls while also able to recover aircraft on the rear platform. Match this up with the fifty knots that the tri hull should be capable and you have excellent maximum load and bringback possibilities. I'm sure it would make a guy want to lose his lunch once in awhile - launching like a downhill roller coaster - but it would sure cut down the need to do the job above deck.

p.s. I realize the F-35B isn't made for catapult launches. It should have had some minimum ability to do it.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 04:48
by 1st503rdsgt
madrat wrote:I'd like to see them use an S-curve catapult launch from an offboard rail system.


Googled "S-curve catapult." Didn't find anything accept this thread. :(

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 06:03
by spazsinbad
'madrat' I think we all have minimum ability to be catapulted - but to what end? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5cD_oTV2wI

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 06:10
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:'madrat' I think we all have minimum ability to be catapulted - but to what end? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5cD_oTV2wI


I've heard about this gag, but never seen it. :D

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 06:13
by spazsinbad
USN 'Shooters' (Catapult Officers) have their boots catapulted on their last day. Photo to follow.

Best paean to 'cat o' here: http://tailhookdaily.typepad.com/tailho ... ooter.html
________________

Infamous LandLubber Cubi Cat recreated Kingsville story:
http://tailhookdaily.typepad.com/tailho ... ville.html
________________

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/foru ... p?t=202794
______________

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _Ocean.jpg
______________________________

"NORTH ARABIAN SEA (March 20, 2010) Lt. Cmdr. Kim Dacosta catapults her boots off the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) to commemorate her last launch aboard the ship."

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 6E-148.jpg

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 09:10
by madrat
1st503rdsgt wrote:
madrat wrote:I'd like to see them use an S-curve catapult launch from an offboard rail system.


Googled "S-curve catapult." Didn't find anything accept this thread. :(


S-curve is a mathematical shape. It's not a true S, just similar to the letter's shape.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 12:21
by count_to_10
You probably would want more of a "J" curve than an S. It might save space to have some kind of moving tram that the aircraft are clamped to, so that you don't need a ramp for the main gear.
And, while I would love to see the Independence class sport an F-35, I don't think there is anything like room to launch one from the gap between it's hull and outrigger, and the deck isn't set up to give the clearance forward to catapult anything.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 16:21
by 1st503rdsgt
Over on Secret Projects, I once saw some interesting ideas about using expendable rocket trolleys to throw STOVL fighters off the ski-jump of a very small tri-hull carrier. I'll look around.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 17:30
by madrat
count_to_10 wrote:You probably would want more of a "J" curve than an S. It might save space to have some kind of moving tram that the aircraft are clamped to, so that you don't need a ramp for the main gear.

And, while I would love to see the Independence class sport an F-35, I don't think there is anything like room to launch one from the gap between it's hull and outrigger, and the deck isn't set up to give the clearance forward to catapult anything.


No, I meant the mathematical S-curve; fits more length to accelerate in a given length. Mother nature uses S-curves for good reason. I realize the LCS is small, but the basis of the design was scalable. I'm thinking of a 3-dimensional engineered solution rather than a simple 2-dimensional diagram. The idea is to utilize otherwise unused space and do it in an affordable fashion. If super short takeoff's were the goal at any cost we'd see rato-assisted straight vertical takeoffs.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 17:54
by spazsinbad
'madrat': "...rato-assisted straight vertical takeoffs." WOW. And a very thick steel deck to withstand the heat. UhOH. Back to melting decks. :D These sorts of ideas were investigated some 3 decades ago. You have not mentioned SKYHOOKs yet (a great Oz Band by the way). So I'm looking forward to that. Isn't there a soft rock band called 'S Bend'?

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 18:31
by 1st503rdsgt
Here's the crazy launch idea I was talking about for a small (well, small by US standards) trimaran carrier. Here's the thread that goes with it. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... pic=6441.0

Image

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 18:44
by spazsinbad
Will the expendable rocket trolley catapulting ski jumping running standing still trimaran have only VL recoveries? Wot? No SKYHOOK? Bugga. So now not as much BrungBack?

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 18:48
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Will the expendable rocket trolley catapulting ski jumping running standing still trimaran have only VL recoveries? Wot? No SKYHOOK? Bugga. So now not as much BrungBack?


It looks to have running recoveries of some kind, but the angle on that runway...

Image

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 18:53
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:...Bugga. So now not as much BrungBack?


...on another thread we discovered CVL ("Creepy Landings") by BF-1 at PAX. :?: :idea: :?: :lol:

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 19:11
by spazsinbad
I'd rather F-35B landing info be on this thread please? Tah.

F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20304.html (stroll to end of 1st page)

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 19:20
by spazsinbad
The idiotic angle for angle deck landings on the trimaran has not been thought through I suspect. Perhaps it will be workable on the super-duper-computer-controlled-futuristic-aircraft wot will use it but already probably the 9 degree angle deck used by CVNs is 'angled enough' for practical purposes. To get the wind down the angle the ship must steam 'angled off' from prevailing wind to get wind down angle. If NIL wind then the ship makes all the wind causing other issues for the angle deck approach. With extreme angles then there are other effects from superstructure but my guess would be an approach to such an extreme angle will be impossible in practice.

Remember this: the ship moves forward, the angle deck moves forward and to the right relative to the approaching aircraft which in turn has to jink to the right in small amounts constantly to remain lined up. There is no drifting to the deck for lineup. Every parameter must be spot on as good as can be during the entire approach. This is why deck landing is not so easy. Every parameter is changing with the pilot changing in at least three bits of + then minus to get to OK but then another change to remain there but it all changes again. There are good explanations about carrier landings under ideal conditions out there that don't really explain the small constant changes required. That is why an OK underlined approach (the GOLD/GREEN standard) is so difficult to achieve in practice. Dare I say my PDF about such matters is helpful but the 'how to deck land' PDF is complex reading because I don't attempt to pull all the strands together myself.

Perhaps the task of landing on this tritemaran is easier if only SRVLs used with the superdupercomputercontrols automatically compensating for the horrendous conditions but I would rather use a SKYHOOK. :D

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 19:51
by 1st503rdsgt
Spaz, I'm not gonna presume to argue with you over the 'idiotic angle' (looks pretty stupid to me as well), but would it be workable if the ship was only making steerage-way speed? Of course, my guess is that a more mature design would just straighten it out a bit.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 19:59
by spazsinbad
'steerage way' forward speed would help but then there are other factors. What is the natural wind speed and is it convenient to 'steer slowly appropriately' when perhaps the situation requires a fast ship speed. Yes conventional carriers have limitations and also have an ideal WOD to achieve but everything is fungible within limits.

If the natural wind is high then the catamaran needs to negate it such that your WOD is minimal (as suggested by 'steerage way but you have probably assumed NIL windage). In 'stormy weather' this desired effect may not be possible and will also cause adverse effects on the sea-keeping ability of this tricatmaran or whatever. The SKYHOOK is best. :D

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 20:10
by 1st503rdsgt
Spaz, that looks like some serious crazy.

Image

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 20:14
by spazsinbad
No more than the other crazy. :D

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 20:27
by 1st503rdsgt
There are all manner of crazy concepts out there (a lot of which involve ski-jump mods for container/ro-ro ships), but I suppose that's the beauty of STOVL fighters like the F-35. It allows people to experiment with different ideas (though not always good ones).

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 21:21
by spazsinbad
Certainly there have been some practical ideas down the years but how they work when built/operated might be another matter. I guess today with advanced computing power a lot of ideas can be trashed before too much effort is spent upon them. Probably simple is good and a ski jump flat deck of a suitable size certainly fits the bill.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 21:44
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Certainly there have been some practical ideas down the years but how they work when built/operated might be another matter. I guess today with advanced computing power a lot of ideas can be trashed before too much effort is spent upon them. Probably simple is good and a ski jump flat deck of a suitable size certainly fits the bill.


As in Cavour, the best light-carrier design I've seen so far. I really gotta hand it to the Italians here; that is one fine ship. I can hardly wait to see the Bees trying it out.

Image

http://www.military-today.com/navy/cavour.htm

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 21:48
by count_to_10
1st503rdsgt wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Will the expendable rocket trolley catapulting ski jumping running standing still trimaran have only VL recoveries? Wot? No SKYHOOK? Bugga. So now not as much BrungBack?


It looks to have running recoveries of some kind, but the angle on that runway...

Image

If you are going to do a trimaran carrier with a ski-jump, you should have the take-off runway go the length of the ship, and have a shorter landing strip on one of the out riggers -- so that you wouldn't need to angle it.
Alternately, you could have a deck that is one big rectangle it's whole length and width, letting you have multiple full-length runways.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 21:55
by count_to_10
spazsinbad wrote:Certainly there have been some practical ideas down the years but how they work when built/operated might be another matter. I guess today with advanced computing power a lot of ideas can be trashed before too much effort is spent upon them. Probably simple is good and a ski jump flat deck of a suitable size certainly fits the bill.

Besides specifics for the ship, one of the things they started doing with the Virgina class submarine was modeling how operations would work on the ship. For the sub, it was just a model of a human being to make sure that all the required maintenance was physically possible, but, for an aircraft carrier, they could model all of the aircraft and ordinance movements that would be required for various operations in order to optimize the flight deck and elevators.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 22:04
by spazsinbad
Cavour was modelled after a USN study for a 'Sea Control Ship' back in the 1970s. Here is a Utube Video URL:

Aircraft carrier Italy CAVOUR.flv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGQSmc_H1CQ

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 22:09
by spazsinbad
Elaborate software/hardware setup already in use for F-35B/C flat deck/human interaction:

CHIL - Collaborative Human Immersive Lab Search for "CHIL" on this forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itOxIpj6 ... e=youtu.be
____________

Total Immersion (Immersive Engineering) SAIL

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... hil#218709

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 22:12
by 1st503rdsgt
count_to_10 wrote:If you are going to do a trimaran carrier with a ski-jump, you should have the take-off runway go the length of the ship, and have a shorter landing strip on one of the out riggers -- so that you wouldn't need to angle it.
Alternately, you could have a deck that is one big rectangle it's whole length and width, letting you have multiple full-length runways.


Similar to this?

Image

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 22:16
by spazsinbad
How about huge deck acreage with a circular banked runway? Howabout straight runways at every ten degrees or less depending on crosswind landing / takeoff capabilities. Are we talking arrest/cat or STOVL ops? Already there are plans for such humungous non moving platforms that are towed offshore for the duration (perhaps the runway ideas are a stretch too far but hey anything goes here - damn the torpedoes - full steam ahead). :D

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 22:25
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Cavour was modelled after a USN study for a 'Sea Control Ship' back in the 1970s.


I don't think so. Actually, that was more the case with the Principe de Asturias (Spain) and Giuseppe Garibaldi (Italy)... as I believe the SCS was supposed to be quite a bit smaller than the Cavour, which was designed much later in any case.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 23:10
by count_to_10
1st503rdsgt wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:If you are going to do a trimaran carrier with a ski-jump, you should have the take-off runway go the length of the ship, and have a shorter landing strip on one of the out riggers -- so that you wouldn't need to angle it.
Alternately, you could have a deck that is one big rectangle it's whole length and width, letting you have multiple full-length runways.


Similar to this?

Image

No, that still has just one center line runway as far as I can tell, and it doesn't extend the whole length.

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 23:46
by marksengineer
Spaz, thanks. Think you'll see a move by Pacific regional powers to buy the F-35B if and when USMC F-35B's engage in cross-deck operations with their aviation capable ships. Nothing like seeing a product in action to make you want to buy it.

As for the styles of pocket carriers everyone is forgeting the ones used in WWII. They are called Islands. A STOVL aircraft in jungle hides on islands around the perimeter of the Asia land mass would present a large targeting problem in my opinion. Tough to sink an island and if you could marry the basing with air to air refueling and or FARP's you might have something. At he very least you could control the sea lanes.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 00:04
by 1st503rdsgt
marksengineer wrote:As for the styles of pocket carriers everyone is forgeting the ones used in WWII. They are called Islands. A STOVL aircraft in jungle hides on islands around the perimeter of the Asia land mass would present a large targeting problem in my opinion. Tough to sink an island and if you could marry the basing with air to air refueling and or FARP's you might have something. At he very least you could control the sea lanes.


Even for mere STOVL operations, such bases would be troublesome to build and maintain in peacetime. Carriers are also a bother, but they can be moved around as needed, which is easier than maintaining a large number of island-garrisons with nothing to do most of the time.

China is already at great expense doing just what you suggest on only ONE island, which may prove to be pointless should tensions ease in the area.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/a ... 21002.aspx

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 00:16
by velocityvector
marksengineer wrote:...in WWII. They are called Islands. A STOVL aircraft in jungle hides on islands around the perimeter of the Asia land mass would present a large targeting problem in my opinion. Tough to sink an island and if you could marry the basing with air to air refueling and or FARP's you might have something. At he very least you could control the sea lanes.

Island airbases are fixed in terms of their coordinates. Still they must be defended by means that are kept local. All this spills useful data for targeting. So island defenses can be surveilled, targeted and overwhelmed with relative higher reliability vice mobile platforms. Beat down F-35 resupply and island installations and you mission kill F-35 even if the actual aircrafts are a hoppin' around the archipeligo. Your suggestion just won't be safe in an era of submarines and various guided missiles. The distributed approach fails when it comes to timely resupply, refurbishment and repair.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 02:02
by archeman
Velocityvector
Beat down F-35 resupply and island installations and you mission kill F-35 even if the actual aircrafts are a hoppin' around the archipeligo.


vv, the point you make is a good one, but you might be surprised how resilient air bases can be.
I read an AF Mag article about an evaluation of a base under attack and about the most critical item turns out to be the runway repair equipment. In fact that equipment is so important for standard configuration aircraft that the base commander started throwing out aircraft from his hardened bunkers and putting the runway repair gear in there --- since according to his logic he could live without a few aircraft but he couldn't live without the runway repair gear. Now fact or into his thinking STOVL aircraft supply and the base becomes very resilient indeed.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... salty.aspx

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 02:50
by velocityvector
Persistent VX delivered in waves over time. (Even insane Japanese cultists can figure that denial technique well enough.) Add high explosives under beidou and mix other ordnance deliveries with different guidances. Heck, if it's important enough of a target the Chinese will land paratroops by glider or sumbitchmarine. F-35 or any other fixed wing may enjoy poor prospects in terms of mission effectiveness under island-hopping scenario. B model won't matter.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 02:56
by 1st503rdsgt
archeman wrote:vv, the point you make is a good one, but you might be surprised how resilient air bases can be.
I read an AF Mag article about an evaluation of a base under attack and about the most critical item turns out to be the runway repair equipment. In fact that equipment is so important for standard configuration aircraft that the base commander started throwing out aircraft from his hardened bunkers and putting the runway repair gear in there --- since according to his logic he could live without a few aircraft but he couldn't live without the runway repair gear. Now fact or into his thinking STOVL aircraft supply and the base becomes very resilient indeed.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... salty.aspx


I'm not so concerned with the island garrisons' in function in war as I am with their utility in peace. You'd have to have several just to cover the theater I assume we're talking about (Pacific Rim), and they'd just be a logistic burden most of the time. Carriers are the most effective means of covering a large area of ocean most of the time; and if there is a war, at least then you'll know which islands need to be utilized.

I've never been a big fan of the USMC's expeditionary/austere base concept. Seems to be a rather expensive duplication of facilities that would most likely already be there in most areas of interest (airports).

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 03:06
by spazsinbad
Aaahh - how easy it is to drift from thread topic. Back to austere base bashing now? How about FOB for a change of nomclature? But this aint the USMC bashing thread is it? '1st503rdsgt' how about you start such a thread as has been suggested so that all the hate can go there and I'll ignore youse.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 03:14
by 1st503rdsgt
velocityvector wrote:Persistent VX delivered in waves over time. (Even insane Japanese cultists can figure that denial technique well enough.) Add high explosives under beidou and mix other ordnance deliveries with different guidances. Heck, if it's important enough of a target the Chinese will land paratroops by glider or sumbitchmarine. F-35 or any other fixed wing may enjoy poor prospects in terms of mission effectiveness under island-hopping scenario. B model won't matter.


I don't like the island base idea either, but you're starting embarrass me here. Missiles are no way to deliver persistent waves of anything (even China would run out pretty quick); and no one with the resources to build such missiles in quantity would be so stupid as to use VX (you need to lay off the paperback fiction). Gliders have been obsolete for decades, and paratroopers better have a really big island to land on or you'll end up with a lot of shark-bait. And did you mean submarines? If so, those aren't going to work for anything other than small-time infiltration.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 03:18
by velocityvector
spazsinbad wrote:Aaahh - how easy it is to drift from thread topic. Back to austere base bashing now? How about FOB for a change of nomclature? But this aint the USMC bashing thread is it? '1st503rdsgt' how about you start such a thread as has been suggested so that all the hate can go there and I'll ignore youse.

Presumed reference frame: proximate to the Peoples Republic of China. You gotta another relevant one, please do share.

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 04:43
by spazsinbad
'velocityvector' the thread title is "F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers" - the first post is

"I've stated in previous posts that one of the F-35B's good points is the capability it offers to US allies who've been shut out of front-line naval TACAIR for decades by the high costs of CATOBAR ships and operations.


While discussing this recent article on LHA-6 AMERICA over on Spaz's long thread, http://defense.aol.com/2012/10/03/navys ... ous-ships/ I started thinking:

-How many of the non-US flat-decks already out there could actually be adapted to the F-35B? (perhaps not that many)

-Would any countries without carriers consider investing in such assets if the F-35B proves workable?

-What would be the minimum size for a useful Bee carrier?

-How would a dozen or so non-US Bee carriers change the international security picture?"

UhOH. China? Wot China?

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2012, 17:11
by 1st503rdsgt
Spaz, seems you might be right about a Dokdo successor (F-35B capable) after all, although it looks to be another LHD ship similar in size to the Canberras. Only one mention in the comment section of Strategypage, though I suspect a Hangul-speaker might find more.

Image
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnava ... ofcomments

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2012, 18:03
by 1st503rdsgt
Here's a recent piece on how Italy has managed to hang on to naval fixed-wing despite being in worse financial shape than Britain, which is looking at a long, irreversible gap until the QEs arrive. Basically, it serves as an example of how even small, troubled economies can build/maintain carrier strike groups if the determination and planning are there. Though I must admit, the Italian F-35B/Cavour program isn't out of the woods yet.

A tale of two Harriers: How Italy held on to carrier strike
18 September 2012

Defence blogger Gabriele Molinelli explores the different approaches to defence that left financially troubled Italy with carrier strike capability while the UK faces nearly a decade without

On 26 October 2011, the Italian Navy's 'Embarked Aircraft Group', GRUPAER, celebrated its first 20 years. The pilots of the squadron could proudly celebrate in front of their Harriers, having operated to great effect over Libya from the aircraft carrier Garibaldi. They flew 33 per cent of Italy's war sorties, and 53 per cent of the land attack missions, dropping 160 guided bombs in the process.

In the UK, their colleagues from Joint Force Harrier had nothing to celebrate. Their aircraft and the ship from which they would have had to fly from were both already gone, victims of 2010's Strategic Defence and Security review. So why the differences between the two nations?.....

Another crucial difference is that the Italian Harrier squadron is under full navy control thanks to a law approved on 26 January 1989 specifically to allow the Navy to add a fixed wing jet capability "for air defence of the fleet and the support to naval and amphibious operations". The Royal Navy lost control of its Harriers with the formation of the Joint Force with the RAF, a measure which was part of the Labour defence review in 1998 and that brought the Harriers under RAF Group 1 command. The Navy effectively lost control of them and of their fate at that moment. Just a decade later, in 2008, the First Sea Lord had to threaten resignation to stop the RAF from withdrawing the Harrier force, but by 2010 it was a done deal.......

Finally, the decisive difference is political and strategic. Successive Italian governments have agreed that the armed forces buy Italy respect and political influence. Contributions to multinational efforts are seen as a major element in Italy's foreign policy. As a consequence, the armed forces' strategy has been focused on expeditionary operations, with the navy to the fore thanks to the new carrier Cavour and its larger, more capable future complement of F35Bs and plans for much more capable amphibious forces. Even in a time of cuts, attention was paid to go ahead as regularly as possible with the necessary investments.

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 12:27
by spazsinbad
From: http://www.combatreform.org/fighterinabox.htm

Another SKYHOOK: http://www.combatreform.org/skyhookmobileversion.jpg

"...CAPTION: During the 1980s, BAe came up with the SkyHook to snatch Harriers at sea without having to land on small ship decks even with vertical landing capability. One option was to put the SkyHook crane on a ground vehicle to speed landing, refuel/rearming again without need of obvious runways...."

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 13:04
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 13:44
by popcorn
What level of sortie rates would converted container ships be able to generate and how long could they sustain them? Wouldn't it be a big challenge maintaining aircraft that are exposed,to the elements?

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 14:34
by madrat
Container ships are fine for ferry or emergency diversions, but hardly suitable for operations. In all reality a pocket carrier needs alternative uses to justify its expense, too. Otherwise what's the point? The only reason I float the idea of exterior launch platforms off deck is to maximize the use of available volume. The top of the deck can be focused on helicopters and recovery. If you're not concerned with arrestors then you don't have much use for angle decks.

The real question is what is the ship's potential mission(s).

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 15:47
by SpudmanWP
Depends one how you do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuJ_laM9PA0

Image

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2012, 22:43
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:TOP of this page only otherwise TOO MUCH INFORMATION! :D http://www.combatreform.org/sld026.htm

I'm not sure those ideas are workable. I'm in no way qualified to say this definitively, but I think whoever wrote that piece has badly underestimated the level of engineering that goes into a modern flight-deck; and the rest of his work just keeps departing further and further from reality as he seems to have little understanding of military logistics in the real world.



I like the Maersk proposal Spud posted though. It's certainly worth keeping in mind.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 00:56
by count_to_10
1st503rdsgt wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:TOP of this page only otherwise TOO MUCH INFORMATION! :D http://www.combatreform.org/sld026.htm

I'm not sure those ideas are workable. I'm in no way qualified to say this definitively, but I think whoever wrote that piece has badly underestimated the level of engineering that goes into a modern flight-deck; and the rest of his work just keeps departing further and further from reality as he seems to have little understanding of military logistics in the real world.



I like the Maersk proposal Spud posted though. It's certainly worth keeping in mind.

That one looks pretty well thought out, down to the storage containers bellow the hanger "deck" and loading and unloading vehicles. I wonder: is this an on-the-fly conversion (where all that would be necessary is to keep the modules in storage somewhere), or is it a purpose-build conversion?

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 01:36
by 1st503rdsgt
count_to_10 wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:I like the Maersk proposal Spud posted though. It's certainly worth keeping in mind.

That one looks pretty well thought out, down to the storage containers bellow the hanger "deck" and loading and unloading vehicles. I wonder: is this an on-the-fly conversion (where all that would be necessary is to keep the modules in storage somewhere), or is it a purpose-build conversion?


It look complicated enough to be a long-term or even permanent conversion, similar to the Mercy-class ships being converted from oil-tankers.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 01:49
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:Depends one how you do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuJ_laM9PA0

Image


Interesting.. I'm curious to see how much this thing would cost but it does offer a lot of capability. That climate-controlled hangar deck really sets it apart. I would hope they would have more than the one aircraft elevator shown on the animation.. same with the crane.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 03:56
by madrat
It would cost one torpedo.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 04:08
by 1st503rdsgt
madrat wrote:It would cost one torpedo.


As would the sub that tried to get close enough. I do love it when people assume the other guy has it so much easier.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 06:24
by madrat
I hate the fact the other guy is on scholarship, too.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 07:35
by Prinz_Eugn
1st503rdsgt wrote:
madrat wrote:It would cost one torpedo.


As would the sub that tried to get close enough. I do love it when people assume the other guy has it so much easier.


I think the sub would have the distinct advantage of being a submarine and not a container ship.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 07:57
by 1st503rdsgt
Prinz_Eugn wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
madrat wrote:It would cost one torpedo.


As would the sub that tried to get close enough. I do love it when people assume the other guy has it so much easier.


I think the sub would have the distinct advantage of being a submarine and not a container ship.


Whatever y'alls two. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMSHvgaUWc8

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 09:32
by popcorn
It appears theNavy is serious about the Afloat Forward StagingBase concept. It would apparently be based on the MLP and the USMC would be a primary customer. That means the decks would very likely be rated for V-22s and F-35Bs.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... g-U-S-Navy

New Floating Base Ships Coming for U.S. Navy

Decades after the idea was broached for a floating, mobile base to support operating forces in the Persian Gulf, the concept has suddenly shifted into high gear, and a sense of urgency is driving both new U.S. ship construction and conversion of an existing vessel.

A new Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) is mentioned almost in passing within the Pentagon budget briefing document made public Jan. 26...

... U.S. Navy officials would not publicly confirm the new construction, but sources confirmed the service plans to modify the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) design to take on the AFSB role.

Three MLPs have been funded for construction at the General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding (NASSCO) shipyard in San Diego. The ships are large, 765-foot-long vessels able to float off small landing craft, tugs or barges.

For the AFSB role, a fourth MLP hull would be modified with several decks, including a hangar, topped by a large flight deck able to operate the heavy H-53s in the airborne mine countermeasures role.

But the AFSB will also be able to carry Marines, support patrol and special operations craft, and fuel and arm other helicopters.

The ship is expected to be requested in 2014.

Sources also said the Navy might be considering modifying the third MLP to the AFSB mission. Construction of that ship, funded in the 2012 defense bill, is being negotiated between NASSCO and the Navy.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 16:39
by madrat
This is a cartoon-ish representation of how I thought exterior launching could work.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 18:55
by 1st503rdsgt
popcorn wrote:It appears theNavy is serious about the Afloat Forward StagingBase concept. It would apparently be based on the MLP and the USMC would be a primary customer. That means the decks would very likely be rated for V-22s and F-35Bs.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... g-U-S-Navy


This idea (as it's been applied to the USS Ponce) would seem to be rather limited (too small for Bee ops) and geared toward missions like mine clearance, patrol, and support of special operations. I'm not so sure it would be practical to scale it to a larger platform.

Then again, that applies to the USN; and this thread is about naval deployment of the F-35B by non-US forces who might find a large floating base more suitable for their means. However, it does not seem justifiable to purchase such expensive aircraft for a platform of such limited purpose.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 19:06
by 1st503rdsgt
madrat wrote:This is a cartoon-ish representation of how I thought exterior launching could work.


I'm no naval architect, but that design seems overly complicated. I'm also worried about how one would keep water out of the S-curve.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 20:50
by spazsinbad
Drain water with a big drain at the bottom of the curve? The 'F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump???' thread (page 2) has another 'madrat' s-curve arrangement on rails:

CV with monorail 01 June 2010: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ity#176328

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 21:07
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Drain water with a big drain at the bottom of the curve? The 'F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump???' thread (page 2) has another 'madrat' s-curve arrangement on rails:

CV with monorail 01 June 2010: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ity#176328


There's very little freeboard (or whatever the pukes would call it) between the bottom of that S-curve and the waterline. A "big drain" would probably make the problem worse. Besides, even the end of the ramp isn't very high; whatever device is used would have to ship a lot of water very quickly. Still, if you think it would work, I'll shut-up; you know more about these things than I ever will.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 21:26
by spazsinbad
Water collected in bilges is PUMPed overboard with a Bilge Pump. This forum needs such a device sometimes. :D

Somewhere on the VLT is an article about 'gravity assisted ski-jump' testing but I cannot find it for the moment. Initially the ramp goes down - then up - it was proved to be useful on land: onboard? don't know. Simple is good - I put a lot of 'innovations' in the SKYHOOK category.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 22:20
by madrat
I imagine the sea state that puts water into the launch chute also disrupts operations. Besides, if the opening ever scooped water they make one-way drains and bilge pumps. The navies of the world figured a lot of this stuff out decades ago.

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2012, 23:17
by popcorn
1st503rdsgt wrote:
popcorn wrote:It appears theNavy is serious about the Afloat Forward StagingBase concept. It would apparently be based on the MLP and the USMC would be a primary customer. That means the decks would very likely be rated for V-22s and F-35Bs.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... g-U-S-Navy

K
This idea (as it's been applied to the USS Ponce) would seem to be rather limited (too small for Bee ops) and geared toward missions like mine clearance, patrol, and support of special operations. I'm not so sure it would be practical to scale it to a larger platform.

Then again, that applies to the USN; and this thread is about naval deployment of the F-35B by non-US forces who might find a large floating base more suitable for their means. However, it does not seem justifiable to purchase such expensive aircraft for a platform of such limited purpose.


As a logistics hub, more practical as an Osprey and helo nest.., a lilypad for F-35B.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 02:27
by stereospace
"For the AFSB role, a fourth MLP hull would be modified with several decks, including a hangar, topped by a large flight deck able to operate the heavy H-53s in the airborne mine countermeasures role."

Sounds like the kind of vessel you might build if you were worried about someone (Iran, just as a guess?) trying to close down the Persian Gulf. And they want it in a hurry too, by 2014. Someone is doing a little crystal ball gazing, I suspect. Or war-gaming, at least.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 03:50
by popcorn
stereospace wrote:"For the AFSB role, a fourth MLP hull would be modified with several decks, including a hangar, topped by a large flight deck able to operate the heavy H-53s in the airborne mine countermeasures role."

Sounds like the kind of vessel you might build if you were worried about someone (Iran, just as a guess?) trying to close down the Persian Gulf. And they want it in a hurry too, by 2014. Someone is doing a little crystal ball gazing, I suspect. Or war-gaming, at least.


An innovative and multi-purpose piece to the whole sea base concept. The 3 initial MLPs cost $1.3B in total or around $450M per unit..,the 4th ship with the AFSB conversions would up this cost somewhat but should provide a lot of bang for the buck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... ory_1.html
Navy Special Forces units: How many are needed?Text Size Print E-mail Reprints

In the shipbuilding area, the Navy is proposing to build a fourth Mobile Landing Platform, a ship that serves as a base for amphibious operations and which, if needed, can handle transfers from large warships to small landing craft. Three have been ordered in a program that costs about $1.3 billion. The first is not expected until 2015.

One, however, is to be configured to handle a bigger role as an Afloat Forward Staging Base. According to one report, it would be reconfigured to include a hangar and flight deck that would allow heavy helicopters to be flown in a mine-countermeasures role...

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 05:33
by spazsinbad
Here is the ' ' PDF: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a126456.pdf

Short Takeoff Performance Using a Gravity Assist Ski Jump by Roger J. Furey 1983 March

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a126456.pdf (1Mb)

"ABSTRACT:
A modified or gravity assist ski jump is developed, through an application of the calculus of variations, to provide for the shortest takeoff roll for a thrust vector control type vertical or short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft that will maintain a better-than-minimum required rate of climb. As a means of comparison between the resulting modified and a conventional ski jump, the equations of motion are programed to model the takeoff performancer using a ski jump. The results of this model are found to compare well with Naval Air Test Center ski jump test results of the AV-8A aircraft. A comparison of the standard and gravity assist ski jump shows a reduction of 30 percent in required ground roll and 20 percent in distance to a 50-ft altitude, while maintaining a better-than-minimum required rate of climb, with the modified ramp. A simple modified ramp, using a pair of standard multiple girder bridging (MGB) ramps, is shown to provide similar improvements in takeoff performance."...
&
"...While the performance benefits to be gained through the use of the ski jump have been demonstrated, it seems reasonable that, as in the case of an actual skier, an assist from gravity in the initial downhill run prior to the ramp entry would provide for greater initial acceleration and thereby further performance gains. The current report is an effort to determine what the ski jump shape should be in order to provide for a maximum payload with the shortest takeoff roll. The payoff would include smaller ships platforms from which such aircraft could operate...."

Conclusions
"A modified or gravity assist ski jump ramp shape was generated through an application of the calculus of variations. The modified shape employs an initial down run which takes advantage of gravity to maximise acceleration and energy at the beginning of the takeoff....

...The purpose of this report has been to present results which are necessarily preliminary in the sense that a limited number of variables have been evaluated. Although such an arrangement of ski jump ramps may be physically challenging, the challenge is no greater than the single ski jump ramp first presented...."

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 06:33
by spazsinbad
European Carrier Group Interoperability Initiative Exercise "Levante 12"

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/var/dicod/st ... avallo.jpg

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 12:00
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:European Carrier Group Interoperability Initiative Exercise "Levante 12"


Nice pic. :)

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 09:31
by 1st503rdsgt
Please don't be mad at me Spaz. I'm just re-posting your new article links on the Canberra-class over here in case I need to find them later (a lot of good stuff gets buried over on your long thread).

http://www.defence.gov.au/defencenews/s ... t/1017.htm
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012 ... ck-hull-2/
http://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/u ... _en_v2.pdf
http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/upl ... t-2010.pdf

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2012, 11:38
by spazsinbad
A lot of good stuff is retained as indicated on the VLT!

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 09:37
by 1st503rdsgt
Wow, I hadn't realized I was so far behind the times. Looks like Oz's second LHD has already been in the water for awhile now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16QoOtu30n4
Also, I didn't know ships were still being launched in such dramatic fashion (classic slipway). :applause:
I wish I could do more on this thread, but so little material is available in English on the other ships that could potentially carry the F-35B. Google Translate isn't much help, though it seems the Japanese are still thinking about putting fixed-wing on the 22DDH. http://qnanwho.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-08-17 I've also been unable to find any more references to the Dokdo-class follow-on that Spaz mentioned awhile back, but I'll keep checking. However, the Koreans have some pure carrier concepts they've been kicking around since the 1990s. http://cafe990.daum.net/_c21_/bbs_searc ... u=sch_updw

This first one appears to be the most recent (and conventional).

Image

And check out this crazy dual island design (this is a new one for me).

Image
Image
Image

I wonder if it would even float.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 09:51
by spazsinbad
The last twin peaks carrier looks to be STOBAR? Not much point for F-35B use. I see perhaps that the BAR is for an E-2 style aircraft - what a waste for F-35Bs though.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 10:06
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:The last twin peaks carrier looks to be STOBAR? Not much point for F-35B use. I see perhaps that the BAR is for an E-2 style aircraft - what a waste for F-35Bs though.

Yeah, I don't really care for STOBAR either since it mostly combines the disadvantages of STOVL and CATOBAR. I'm also not convinced the E-2s would work that well on a ramp when fully loaded. Take the wires off and it would still be interesting though.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 12:08
by spazsinbad
Maybe the E-2 could get airborne without the ramp (using landing deck space). So the landing area is then for SRVL? We need to know more about it I guess. All indications are good (depending on length of landing run or whatever). Simultaneous landings and ski jump takeoffs might be fraught though due to the different directions creating out of limit cross winds for one or t'uther.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 16:41
by marksengineer
That forward island will create turbulent air flow behind it. Wonder if you could have a vortice with downward rotating airflow at the end of the angle deck?

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 20:20
by megasun
For STOVL carrier, it would be nice to have a STOVL AWACS.
What about V-22?
It's comparable to C-2. Adding some conformal phase array radar to it, and it will be popular.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 22:06
by neptune
megasun wrote:For STOVL carrier, it would be nice to have a STOVL AWACS.
What about V-22?
It's comparable to C-2. Adding some conformal phase array radar to it, and it will be popular.


The E-2D crowd will fight tooth and nail but, who would have believed the Marines would have a stealth, supersonic STOVL?? :shock:

The V-22 has a good payload for avionics/ operators/ radar/ fuel. With the prop/ rotors out at the end of the wings, a smaller disc could be mounted up, top. :idea:

Or, as you said; maybe a couple of AN/APG-81s with a JSF mission system with EO/DAS. That would "tweak the beak" of the Hawkeyes. A lot of commonality in that package; JSF, V-22, Marines, LHAs, etc. Heck that would even solve a problem for the Brits and maybe even their long-distance cousins. :lol:

Sure beats nothing; with the E-2s stuck on the CVNs.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 22:19
by megasun
For bigger aperture of radar, something like Erieye can be mount on top / bottom of V-22.
And if that prevents folding capability, side-mount like Israel Phalcon could be a choice.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 22:55
by 1st503rdsgt
megasun wrote:For STOVL carrier, it would be nice to have a STOVL AWACS.
What about V-22?
It's comparable to C-2. Adding some conformal phase array radar to it, and it will be popular.

This has already been discussed on Spaz's long thread, but here's some marketing concept art you may or may not have seen.

Image

No takers so far.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 23:00
by count_to_10
Okay, so, if STOBAR is the worst of both worlds, what about CATOVL?
How much would it take to make an F-35B that could be catapulted? Would it be worth it? What about in the future, once EMALS is fully deployed -- could you make a small Catapult Assisted Take-Off Vertical Landing ship?

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 23:03
by count_to_10
1st503rdsgt wrote:
megasun wrote:For STOVL carrier, it would be nice to have a STOVL AWACS.
What about V-22?
It's comparable to C-2. Adding some conformal phase array radar to it, and it will be popular.

This has already been discussed on Spaz's long thread, but here's some marketing concept art you may or may not have seen.

Image

No takers so far.

Wouldn't it be better to mount side facing AESA flush to the fuselage?

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 23:25
by 1st503rdsgt
count_to_10 wrote:Okay, so, if STOBAR is the worst of both worlds, what about CATOVL?
How much would it take to make an F-35B that could be catapulted? Would it be worth it? What about in the future, once EMALS is fully deployed -- could you make a small Catapult Assisted Take-Off Vertical Landing ship?

If anything, that would be even more of a waste than STOBAR.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 23:32
by count_to_10
1st503rdsgt wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Okay, so, if STOBAR is the worst of both worlds, what about CATOVL?
How much would it take to make an F-35B that could be catapulted? Would it be worth it? What about in the future, once EMALS is fully deployed -- could you make a small Catapult Assisted Take-Off Vertical Landing ship?

If anything, that would be even more of a waste than STOBAR.

Would it require too much additional weight?

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2012, 23:40
by 1st503rdsgt
count_to_10 wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Okay, so, if STOBAR is the worst of both worlds, what about CATOVL?
How much would it take to make an F-35B that could be catapulted? Would it be worth it? What about in the future, once EMALS is fully deployed -- could you make a small Catapult Assisted Take-Off Vertical Landing ship?

If anything, that would be even more of a waste than STOBAR.

Would it require too much additional weight?

No, but it would cost more and would still be limited to the same aircraft types as a STOVL ship.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 00:07
by delvo
The catapult attaches to C at the front landing gear, which is part of the reason why the front landing gear is beefed up like it is. It takes up some of the space where B has the bottom of its lift fan. You can't put two things in the same place. And arresting wires would be easier to put on a ship than a catapult anyway.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 00:12
by count_to_10
delvo wrote:The catapult attaches to C at the front landing gear, which is part of the reason why the front landing gear is beefed up like it is. It takes up some of the space where B has the bottom of its lift fan. You can't put two things in the same place. And arresting wires would be easier to put on a ship than a catapult anyway.

Well, then that's that.
Though I'm not sure it wouldn't be easier to put a catapult on a ship than the whole runway needed for a arrested landing. Granted, the cost of EMALS is currently prohibitive for that kind of thing, but I would be surprised if the price doesn't come down drastically in the future.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 13:04
by madrat
It's all about synergy of design. If the goal was straight forward in the beginning there would have been no conflict and the additional landing gear weight is so negligible it should have been a design target to justify F-35B. The fact is the damn F-35B is so shoehorned into such a small role it's not justified to buy. It's an expensive novelty act right now.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 13:37
by spazsinbad
'madrat' if you think this: "...The fact is the damn F-35B is so shoehorned into such a small role..." then I guess you have not been reading what the USMC will be doing with their F-35Bs. Recently here a UK pilot says something meaningful about 'the small role'. And of course you can always 'shape' your opinion via SLDinfo.com

Stroll down: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-675.html

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 13:53
by 1st503rdsgt
madrat wrote:It's all about synergy of design. If the goal was straight forward in the beginning there would have been no conflict and the additional landing gear weight is so negligible it should have been a design target to justify F-35B. The fact is the damn F-35B is so shoehorned into such a small role it's not justified to buy. It's an expensive novelty act right now.

I don't think anyone with half a brain would call the extra weight associated with strengthening a fighter for catapults "negligible." As for synergy, there are already 4 different classes of ship that have been designed with the F-35B in mind, with another (the Wasp-class) already capable of handling it... for a total of 16 ships built or building worldwide.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 17:04
by madrat
If F-35B was cato then there is no need for USMC f-35c.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 17:43
by SpudmanWP
The 2k requirement was a USN one and the _C has much better range than the -B

Image

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 17:50
by madrat
But a Cato F-35B has more combat radius and can operate from a carrier. The conventional takeoff extends its range, too.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 19:05
by spazsinbad
Why cannot an ordinary F-35B operate from a CVN? Is that what you are saying? What is a CATO F-35B? How does a conventional takeoff (on a carrier? by catapult which is not possible?) extend range. Please explain.

Making the F-35B catapult capable is a non starter. Not only does the nosewheel need to be similar to the F-35C but the entire structure of this new catapult capable F-35B needs to be strengthened for such catapulting. For what benefit? Is the LiftFan removed to be taken up by extra fuel? How about spelling out in detail what you are proposing. At the moment it is not clear to me that you understand but then again I may not either. Hence please explain again.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 20:10
by SpudmanWP
CATO vs STOL saves maybe 10-15 seconds of AB. That is not enough to overcome the loss of fuel that the lift-fan takes up or that of the loss of the larger wing.

There is also the issue of the extra weight for a strengthened airframe needed for the CAT.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2012, 23:13
by count_to_10
spazsinbad wrote:Why cannot an ordinary F-35B operate from a CVN? Is that what you are saying? What is a CATO F-35B? How does a conventional takeoff (on a carrier? by catapult which is not possible?) extend range. Please explain.

Making the F-35B catapult capable is a non starter. Not only does the nosewheel need to be similar to the F-35C but the entire structure of this new catapult capable F-35B needs to be strengthened for such catapulting. For what benefit? Is the LiftFan removed to be taken up by extra fuel? How about spelling out in detail what you are proposing. At the moment it is not clear to me that you understand but then again I may not either. Hence please explain again.

My fault -- I started it.
What I was really getting at, though, was a way to deploy jets on a non-flattop ship. Maybe launch it off a rail/cart setup and recover it on a helipad.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 15:01
by 1st503rdsgt
Apparently, Oz is having a little trouble finishing out such a big boat. Nothing catastrophic I'm sure, just the latest news about this new challenge they've taken on. More at the jump.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE

MELBOURNE, Australia — The shipbuilding industry in Australia is facing pressure from a shortage of skilled labor and a lack of continuity in naval shipbuilding projects.

The industry is grappling with the problem as Australia’s first landing helicopter dock ship (LHD) was inducted into BAE Systems’ Williams-town Dockyard here Oct. 28. The hull was constructed in Navantia’s facility in Ferrol, Spain, and brought to Australia.

BAE Systems Australia is the prime contractor for two 27,000-ton LHDs being acquired under a 2 billion to 3 billion Australian dollar ($2.06 billion to $3.12 billion) joint project. BAE is responsible for the fabrication of four sections of superstructure, including mast modules built by its yard at Henderson in Western Australia, and will complete fitting out of the entire vessels.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 15:13
by spazsinbad
This story is a beatup. Yes, in the past there were issues but the company says this:

"...But the company says it now has the skills to deliver the LHD project.

“In the lead up to the project, BAE Systems has made substantial investment in skills and trades to make sure we have the workforce required for the task. Being a global defense company, we also have the added advantage of being able to call on international expertise,” according to a BAE statement...."

I'll guess we find out soon enough if they speak with a forked tongue. Oz media are full of these beatups.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 15:48
by cerberus
madrat wrote:But a Cato F-35B has more combat radius and can operate from a carrier. The conventional takeoff extends its range, too.

The CATO is the F-35C isn't it?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 18:09
by neptune
cerberus wrote:
madrat wrote:But a Cato F-35B has more combat radius and can operate from a carrier. The conventional takeoff extends its range, too.

The CATO is the F-35C isn't it?


Yes,

Catapult Assisted Take Off,

Steam for the Nimitzs,

Electrical/ Magnetic for the Fords

:)

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 19:05
by madrat
My point is that the politics of the F-35B being non-CATO forced a split buy for the USMC. If it had even relaxed CATO standards to fit its weight parameters then you don't split the buy.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 19:12
by spazsinbad
'madrat' as far as I'm concerned you need to re-explain your post immediately above and start from the beginning (of your previous posts [on this thread] amalgamating them into one coherent whole - OK?). Thanks.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 20:46
by madrat
I hate to keep typing it out and I'd have to dig through 68 pages to find the appropriate arguments, quotes, and rebuttals. And most of my thoughts on the matter have been covered in ad naseum in two other related threads.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 21:07
by spazsinbad
I know the feeling so I'll just meander on will I? However there is no point having a CATAPULT modified F-35B. Nothing is gained at all except more deficit. The AV-8A deployment decades ago on the old FDR proved that the Harrier STOVL ops could fit in with regular carrier deck cyclic ops. Otherwise I have read that paragraph of yours above many times and it still makes no sense. So good luck and thanks for all the fish.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2012, 01:25
by madrat
What threat out there justifies the F-35B? I feel like the USMC wasted money for a niche that isn't there. And so what if exported F-35B units will drive down the program price tag. Not building F-35B allows the USN to drive down their costs for F-35C. At this point the F-35B - being built to such a pigeonhole role - makes poor strategic and fiscal sense.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2012, 01:36
by 1st503rdsgt
madrat wrote:What threat out there justifies the F-35B? I feel like the USMC wasted money for a niche that isn't there. And so what if exported F-35B units will drive down the program price tag. Not building F-35B allows the USN to drive down their costs for F-35C. At this point the F-35B - being built to such a pigeonhole role - makes poor strategic and fiscal sense.

Surely, a true disappointment for any Harrier users looking to eventually replace that which is already out of production. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2012, 02:02
by spazsinbad
'madrat' you can have your viewpoint however I wonder if you have read the glowing enthusiasm most FJ USMC pilots have for their future use of the F-35B. What 'pigeon hole role' do you refer pray tell? The USMC want their F-35B and VM-22 team to do it all. SLDinfo is always a good place to have your brain shaped & addled by all the new possibilities. :D

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2012, 02:28
by popcorn
As the saying goes, "tell that to the pigeons..,err.,Marines"..,LOL

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2012, 02:29
by popcorn
...

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2012, 02:56
by neptune
madrat wrote:What threat out there justifies the F-35B?...


The same for all US forces.

The 340 F-35B that the USN is buying for the USMC is derived from the replacement of both the MC AV-8B and part of the MC F/A-18. The 80 F-35C the USN is buying for the USMC is to replace the balance of the MC F/A-18. Together, both branches will buy 340 each of F-35B&C; 680/ total.

These a/c are justified by the strategic planning of the Joint Chiefs and the DoD.

As a side note, the USN insures that the embattled USMC will have control of their own USMC air support. The MEF includes the LHA and LHD for the use by the F-35B, tiltrotor and helicopter forces, unsupported for 60 days.

Additionally, Italy, Spain and the UK have current plans to buy the F-35B in quantities. The USAF, who has tried to cancel the C-17 and mothball the A-10 has had interest in the F-35B and unless you have a better crystal ball than the USAF, other organizations will have future interests, as well.

Lastly, cutting the F-35B will drive up the price of the F-35A and the F-35C, it's that quantity thing. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2012, 04:51
by madrat
The USAF still hasn't worked towards a few more pressing issues than buying F-35B. They are already having problems with the original F-35A numbers.

Look, the F-35B is a beautiful niche. But with the domestic spending out of control you are going to have to make sacrifices to keep the big picture intact. The loss of F-35B is not going to shift the balance of power anywhere in the world.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2012, 05:35
by maus92
F-35B allows the continuance of fixed wing carrier aviation on the cheap for current Harrier operators. While the US can afford to lose the options that STOVL aviation brings to the table, other operators lose fixed wing carrier ops (or the dream to reconstitute them) forever.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2012, 06:28
by neptune
madrat wrote:... But with the domestic spending out of control you are going to have to make sacrifices to keep the big picture intact. ....


Don't mistake that the US economy is similar to those in the EU. The US economy has a large workforce available and languishing production capacity. The economy can grow quickly if it is directed in a proper direction, as in infrastructures. These "out of control spending" pundits are only "out of control" from those that wish to change those in control, not the spending (politics as usual).

No one to-date has demanded the "End" of the F-35B and until that is stated by the DoD and LM, it will not happen. Both groups want the "Bee" because it can add extra sales and those will drive down the individual cost. Don't bet on the "Bee" being ended. Many other programs can be reviewed before the "Bee" is in jeopardy. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2012, 12:57
by madrat
maus92 wrote:F-35B allows the continuance of fixed wing carrier aviation on the cheap for current Harrier operators. While the US can afford to lose the options that STOVL aviation brings to the table, other operators lose fixed wing carrier ops (or the dream to reconstitute them) forever.


It may be what partners want, but if the USMC has it cancelled then the partners live with that decision. In the big picture there are bigger priorities than a niche platform.

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2012, 13:00
by spazsinbad
'madrat' perhaps you will see that the 'niche' is in your eye only. How many F-35Bs are likely to be sold - how many F-35Cs? Which niche is niche(r)? :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2012, 00:15
by madrat
If orders get cut then the B. If orders stay on tract then equal for the US services, leaning toward the B after exports.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2012, 00:17
by count_to_10
Is anyone but the USN buying the Cee?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2012, 00:58
by maus92
count_to_10 wrote:Is anyone but the USN buying the Cee?


The Marines.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2012, 02:23
by count_to_10
maus92 wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Is anyone but the USN buying the Cee?


The Marines.

Oh, right.
Though, technically, the USMC is part of the USN.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2012, 23:06
by wilhelm
If you can fit these on a patrol ship or corvette in the standard flight hangers or on the deck instead of a Helicopter they might offer smaller navies with an over the horizon platform, for target acquisition. I would recommend an Electronic warfare variant with reconfigured bomb bays.

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2012, 21:14
by spazsinbad
Another potential F-35B candidate perhaps? OR if they go BIG then perhaps Turkey will go for some F-35Cs? Whatever.

Turkey to build first domestic aircraft carrier Submitted by TREND on Thu, 11/29/2012 -
Azerbaijan, Baku, Nov.29 / Trend A.Taghiyeva /

http://www.oananews.org/content/news/po ... ft-carrier

"Turkey plans to build the first domestic aircraft carrier, a project of which has been developed over ten years, the Sabah newspaper reported."

I'm not going to subscribe but will scour the intertroubles for more info. :D

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2012, 21:31
by gtx
Reportedly, the length of the aircraft carrier will be 140 meters, while its weight - about 24,000 tons. It will be able to accommodate 8 helicopters, 100 vehicles and 1,000 people on board. Construction will take five years and will cost $1.5 billion.

Sounds very much like a LHD/LHA to me. Though I won't complain if Turkey also wants to acquire and operate F-35Bs from it.

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2012, 22:19
by neptune
gtx wrote:Reportedly, the length of the aircraft carrier will be 140 meters, while its weight - about 24,000 tons. It will be able to accommodate 8 helicopters, 100 vehicles and 1,000 people on board. Construction will take five years and will cost $1.5 billion.

Sounds very much like a LHD/LHA to me. Though I won't complain if Turkey also wants to acquire and operate F-35Bs from it.


3/4 size Canberra? :)

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2012, 23:52
by spazsinbad
If all that length available on flight deck then 140 meters is 460 feet which is well short of the new USMC KPP of 600 feet for a flat deck STO. Do the Turkish envisage a ski jump as well? Probably they'll be OK with that length + Ski JUMP suitable for F-35B STO (I guess modelled on the CVF example). ONLY VLs though for that size. And of course I'm guessing but why not? :D

RAN LHD stats: http://www.navy.gov.au/Launch_of_second ... opter_Dock

"..The Canberra Class LHDs are bigger than Australia’s last aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne (II). When completed they will be more than 230 metres [755 feet] long [but not all flight deck], 27.5 metres high and weigh around 27,500 tonnes...."
______________

Another site says 220 meter for flight deck: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/s ... 6034333694
__________

http://www.defencetalk.com/lhd-01-depar ... und-44290/

And another says: "The Canberra class vessels are 230.8 metres long overall, with a maximum beam of 32 metres, and a maximum draught of 7.18 metres. At full load, “Canberra” will displace 27,851 tonnes, making the new LHDs the largest ships to serve in the RAN.
_______________

Perhaps this Spanith website has more 'truth' but I'll need to translate:

"Eslora total: 230,8 mts.
Eslora entre perpendiculares: 205,7 mts. [probably flight deck length with ski jump]
Manga: 32 mts.
Calado: 6,9 mts.

"eslora entre perpendiculars" = length between perpendiculars

What we do know is that the LHDs (at least for Spain) were designed for F-35Bs & Harriers.

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2012, 23:59
by FlightDreamz
Anyone know how Turkey intends to fund a new carrier and F-35 Lightning II purchases (or am I thinking of Greece)? Quick think fast, what country isn't racking up debt by the minute these days? :shrug:

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 00:11
by spazsinbad
Australia and Turkey are doing well - thanks very much. Quick retort.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 00:12
by gtx
Greece is the one who won't be getting a carrier any decade soon.

Turkey will fund both

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 02:03
by spazsinbad
Turkish Navy adopts new high-sea strategy March/13/2012 ISTANBUL- Hürriyet Daily News

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/PrintN ... &NID=15869

"Turkey’s Naval Forces aim to protect lanes of communication on the high seas to assure global maritime security and protect national interests under an austere defense budget as part of its new strategy, a top Turkish Navy commander has said....

...The top commander also gave information on the Navy’s future strategy. In the short term, the Navy will improve its situational awareness capabilities by adding corvettes and patrol boats to its fleet. Within a decade, the Turkish Naval Forces will focus on conducting operations other than war by building a reconfigurable landing platform with airlift capability, a combat-support ship, multifunctional frigates with unmanned and manned rotary-wing aircraft, as well as air-independent propulsion submarines.

The Navy aims to advance its limited-strike ability over the next 20 years through the acquisition of a multipurpose landing platform with organic short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, air defense frigates and unmanned underwater vehicles.

The Turkish Navy is already planning to buy the design for its first landing platform dock (LPD) Three Turkish-led groups are currently vying for the contract that will be worth between $500 million and $1 billion.

Turkey is expected to spend more than $4 billion on defense procurement this year. In recent years it has focused on Navy programs. Multibillion-dollar naval programs have included the joint production of six modern submarines with Germany, as well as the largely local manufacture of eight corvettes.

“In line with [our] objectives, we will continue to sustain operational effectiveness and a deterrent posture through innovation, maintaining the strategy and technology interface, exploiting indigenous capacity, prioritizing projects and continuous manpower education and training,” Bilgel said."

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 02:12
by 1st503rdsgt
Information is sparse, but it would seem the planned Turkish ship is not going to be fixed-wing capable. A shame really; Turkey is definitely in the right place for building a Bee carrier or two. The Saudis could probably afford a pair as well; and given the likelihood of USN shortages in the future, I'm a little puzzled as to why they haven't at least inquiries (maybe they already have).

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 02:18
by spazsinbad
Perhaps the last post above yours was missed whilst you typed. The first flat deck is a helo LPD all purpose ship whilst a second flat deck within 20 years will be STOVL capable etc.

USA Friendly Arab countries about one decade ago where on a 'selling to' list I saw in one F-35 briefing now a decade old. I guess a lot changes in a decade.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 02:35
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps the last post above yours was missed whilst you typed. The first flat deck is a helo LPD all purpose ship whilst a second flat deck within 20 years will be STOVL capable etc.
Hmm, 20 years is pretty notional, but at least it's established that the short-term plans are for helicopters only.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2013, 07:42
by spazsinbad
'Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz, My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends...' Spanish Harrier pilot view approaching Juan Carlos LHD. One day this Harrier will turn into an F-35B.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2013, 20:29
by neptune
http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/1 ... l-arrives/

http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/1 ... l-arrives/

LHD 01 DEPARTS SPAIN, AUSTRALIA BOUND

On arrival in Australian waters the ship will transit to Port Phillip Bay, Melbourne and then on to the Williamstown dockyard for consolidation of the superstructure and installation of the combat and communications and navigation systems. This will be followed by sea trials.

Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced the departure of the hull of the first of the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN’s) new amphibious ships from Ferrol in northern Spain.

Mr Clare said the Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) 01 hull will be transported to Melbourne, Australia, by the Heavy Lift Ship, Blue Marlin. The hull was built in the Navantia shipyard in Spain.

“The trip is expected to take approximately seven weeks depending on weather conditions,” Mr Clare said.

The Canberra Class LHDs are bigger than Australia’s last aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne. When completed they will be more than 230 metres long, 27.5 metres high and weigh around 27,500 tonnes.

Mr Clare said each ship can carry a combined arms battle group of more than 1100 personnel, 100 armoured vehicles and 12 helicopters and features a 40-bed hospital.

“On arrival in Australian waters the ship will transit to Port Phillip Bay, Melbourne and then on to the Williamstown dockyard for consolidation of the superstructure and installation of the combat and communications and navigation systems. This will be followed by sea trials,” he said.

The vessel is scheduled to be delivered to the RAN in early 2014.

The hull of LHD 02 was launched on 4 July from the Navantia shipyard in a ceremony attended by the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs. When complete, LHD 02 will be commissioned as HMAS Adelaide.

Images of the LHD 01 loading and departure can be found at: http://images.defence.gov.au/12130483

It's here!

7Oct12 in Melbourne, Spaz have they mated the superstructure, at this time?

Happy New Year ! :)

Nice Benz!

Hard to edit on an Ipad! :(





Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... z2Gklgg0U7

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2013, 21:13
by spazsinbad
On this thread page the LHD journey starts: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-675.html

Some pics of arrival on this thread page: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-720.html

Anyhoo here is one or two extra pics. First one arrival day 17 Oct 2012 [ http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/ima ... 909771.JPG ] passing Point Lonsdale in Port Phillip Bay where Melbourne city is situated on northern edge, also city skyline seen in second pic where forward part of the long island is being fitted early Nov 2012.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 02:06
by spazsinbad
From 'Nutloose' at Pprune:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7607870

"One hopes BAe gets wind of the new Russian technology or it might be back to the drawing board"

http://level3.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFile ... 917600.mp4 (11Mb)

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 03:37
by spazsinbad
Ship starts to take shape David Ellery 02 Jan 2013

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... 2c4ie.html

"...Now that the key elements of the vessel are in place, much of this year will be devoted to fitting Canberra out in preparation for her commissioning into the Australian fleet in the first quarter of next year following testing and sea trials.

Mr Saltzer said the work was on schedule and on budget. He understood that the official naming ceremony would be held early this year.

There is, however, much more to the project than just building the ship. Navantia, the designers who also built the hull, are contracted to supply the watercraft that will be shipped aboard Canberra and its sister ship, Adelaide.

The Australian Defence Force is under pressure to train crews and soldiers to make effective use of the two vessels, which have a combined cost in excess of $3.1 billion, from the day they are commissioned.

Adelaide is expected to be ready for service in 2015.

Mr Saltzer said the two vessels were world class and more appropriate to Australia's operational needs than US designs - which tend to be larger and more manpower-intensive - would have been.

He said the project had resulted in the development of a highly efficient naval shipbuilding industry and expressed concern that this capability might be lost if it was not used for new projects.

''Australia is an island nation,'' he said. ''Shipbuilding is a strategic industry...." NOT MUCH ELSE RELEVANT AT THE JUMP.

CAPTION de Pic: "CAPITAL AFLOAT: HMAS Canberra is almost 28,000 tonnes. The combined cost of Canberra and its sister ship, Adelaide, will be more than $3.1 billion"
http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2013 ... 20x349.jpg

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 05:17
by thebigfish
Each is capable of carrying 1100 personnel, 100 armoured vehicles and 12 helicopters. Gee with 2 ships do we even have 2200personnel / 200armoured vehicles / 24 helicopters operational ? With this government cutting spending are these 2 ships really going to be utilised?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 05:43
by spazsinbad
Having two LHDs in service together is some time away. I'll wager that one will be at sea and one alongside with lots of learning to do at beginning. IF you are worried about utilising two fully loaded RAN LHDs then perhaps you may consider outfitting one with all that ARMY gear, whilst the other gets a small number of marvellous F-35Bs? Oh wait - that is expensive also - so why worry? It is not as if the NAVY/ARMY/RAAF hierarchy have not had many years of planning to figure this all out. Recently some new exercises with the new RAN smaller ship HMAS Choules were carried out (until it went U/S). There is a ton of info on the web about 'the new ARMY/RAN co-op' - some of it on the very long thread but here are some quick links:

A VISION OF NAVY'S AMPHIBIOUS FUTURE 17 September 2010

http://www.navy.gov.au/A_Vision_of_Navy ... ous_Future [NOT WORKING now - will look for substitute]
____________________

CHIEF OF ARMY’S ADDRESS TO SEAPOWER 2010

http://www.army.gov.au/docs/SeaPowerConference.pdf [no workee either - will lookee]
__________________

SOME LHD for the RAN info in attached 19 page PDF includes the two articles mentioned above plus a plan for F-35Bs perhaps on the LHDs from a former A4G/SHAR/Test Pilot.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 05:46
by archeman
thebigfish wrote:Each is capable of carrying 1100 personnel, 100 armoured vehicles and 12 helicopters. Gee with 2 ships do we even have 2200personnel / 200armoured vehicles / 24 helicopters operational ? With this government cutting spending are these 2 ships really going to be utilised?


Well I'm sure the idea is that should you NEED that full capability at whatever cost, you could acquire 200 armored vehicles and man them a lot faster than you could build and man these ships.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 07:21
by majorzaid
spazsinbad wrote:From 'Nutloose' at Pprune:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7607870

"One hopes BAe gets wind of the new Russian technology or it might be back to the drawing board"

http://level3.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFile ... 917600.mp4 (11Mb)


Gotta love those crafty Russians... :lmao:

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 08:23
by Conan
thebigfish wrote:Each is capable of carrying 1100 personnel, 100 armoured vehicles and 12 helicopters. Gee with 2 ships do we even have 2200personnel / 200armoured vehicles / 24 helicopters operational ? With this government cutting spending are these 2 ships really going to be utilised?


Yes. 7 Brigade alone has 3500 troops and more than 200 in-service armoured (LAV and Bushmaster) vehicles. You can add 1 and 3 Brigade capabilities on top of this (42x M1A1's, 350x M113AS4's, 160x LAV-25's, 500x Bushmasters and so on).

5 Aviation Regiment alone currently has 31 helicopters on strength (12x MRH-90, 12x S-70A9's, 7x Chinooks). Then you can add 1 Aviation Regiment (16x Tigers), 6 Aviation Regiment (12x S-70A9's and 24x Kiowa's) and RAN's MRH-90's, S-70B2's and in future MH-60R's.

Army and RAN between them are generating the capability to deploy 2-4 Chinooks, 12-16 MRH-90's and 4-6 Tigers from these ships (combined) with numbers adjusted as required by the mission. Such a deployment will be sustainable, given the requirements of the force generation cycle and the overall force structure we are building.

I get your point, but there's no need to be ridiculous. More realistic is a continually insufficient sustainment budget, so these ships are tied up alongside Garden Island, as much as Kanimbla and Manoora used to be...

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 08:26
by Conan
archeman wrote:
thebigfish wrote:Each is capable of carrying 1100 personnel, 100 armoured vehicles and 12 helicopters. Gee with 2 ships do we even have 2200personnel / 200armoured vehicles / 24 helicopters operational ? With this government cutting spending are these 2 ships really going to be utilised?


Well I'm sure the idea is that should you NEED that full capability at whatever cost, you could acquire 200 armored vehicles and man them a lot faster than you could build and man these ships.


We have more than sufficient troops and equipment to take advantage of these ships capabilities, even in a fiscally tight time for defence. My post above explains...

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2013, 10:06
by spazsinbad
A 35Mb PDF of extracts about RAN LHD issues, from the latest version of the RAN FAA A4G PDF, is available on SpazSinbad page on SkyDrive:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=CBCD63D6 ... 0707E6!116

LHD+F-35BinfoJan2013pp123.pdf (35Mb) in folder named: 'Documents Various'.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2013, 00:47
by spazsinbad
Have found another free download website (although registration required) so a slightly more informative LHD/F-35B PDF is available here now:

LHD+F-35Binfo06Jan2013pp128.pdf 36Mb

http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/PXEB ... =647197583

ADDITION: Perhaps FireFox 11 should be used at moment to access this file on 4shared. They are working on a fix for IE10 in Win8 at moment.
_________________

Older version also available here:

LHD+F-35BinfoJan2013pp123.pdf 35Mb

https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#fo ... 0VEM2ZvOXM

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 04:26
by spazsinbad
A nave firme from Jorge Molina Lamothe PRO 2 months ago

http://vimeo.com/52145382

"Toma de dos Harriers sobre el Juan Carlos I"
'Take two Harriers on Juan Carlos I'

The camera view (looking aft) is from the LSO station in the overhanging FLYCO in the forward part of the very long island structure on the Spanish (Oz) LHD Juan Carlos I. The sight is for the long stern approach alongside abeam with a slide over to the landing spot as seen for the F-35B aboard USS Wasp. Probably the scribble means something. :D

http://www.buquesdeguerra.com/buques/an ... n-carlos-i

FlyCo overhang deck: http://www.buquesdeguerra.com/images/mi ... MuanBn.jpg
&
http://www.buquesdeguerra.com/images/mi ... pwZw==.jpg

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 06:28
by spazsinbad
Somebody was thinking ahead in a speculative way in 1998 without success however...

A Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) Aircraft Carrier (S-CVX) 1998

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a345638.pdf (11.6Mb)

ABSTRACT
"This report documents a systems engineering and design capstone project, directed by the Total Ship Systems Engineering (TSSE) faculty and undertaken by students in the TSSE program at the Naval Postgraduate School and performed over two academic quarters. It takes a fresh look at the basic design and operation ofthe modern aircraft carrier, assuming availability of short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, employing gas turbine ship propulsion and providing significant capability to support humanitarian operations. In the design study reported here, the authors take a systems engineering approach to a totally new carrier design which may best suit the requirements for the next generation aircraft carrier. The central goal was to provide a ship to meet all ofthe current mission requirements ofthe existing Nimitz class carriers but in a platform that is significantly lower in life cycle costs. The outcome is a ship based on a concept called "super-island"; a large island structure that can provides drive-through "pitstops" for aircraft refueling and rearming as well as other major functions. Other areas of major innovation include: weapons handling, information processing and distribution, engineering layout and manning. The report provides an overview of the major ship systems as well as detailed discussions of selected design areas chosen to illustrate those systems that had the most impact on meeting design goals."
&
"...2.2.1 STOVL / Emergency CTOL Capability
The MNS calls for the basic airwing to be fully STOVL capable while the ship still retains the capability for emergency landing and launching CTOL aircraft from legacy aircraft carriers. This allows us to examine elimination of the catapult and arresting gear systems. The embarked STOVL aircraft should present no problems with eliminating the catapults. The only remaining issue is whether or not the emergency CTOL launch capability can be achieved without catapults. In the Future Aircraft Carrier Study performed by the Naval Air Engineering Center [1] it was shown that the F/A-18 using a 6 degree ramp can take-off at maximum weight with only a 400 foot roll out. Assuming this to be our worst-case-need roll out, it shows that eliminating the catapults is indeed feasible. With regard to the arresting gear, no known alternative exists for trapping multiple CTOL aircraft even on an infrequent basis. Thus the arresting gear will have to be retained...."
&
"...4.1.1.5 Recovery and Launch ofLegacy Aircraft
Our design required the capability to recover and launch all legacy (i.e. CTOL) aircraft on a one time basis in the event of the loss of flight deck capability of a legacy carrier operating in the same theater. We therefore have installed three conventional arresting wires between the #2 and #3 elevators on the starboard side. The landing area and arresting wires match the dimensions and capabilities of the Nimitz class carriers. We considered this an emergency evolution that would require the ceasing of all other air operations during CTOL recovery since the entire launch area would be used. To launch the CTOL aircraft, a combination of light aircraft load, high wind over deck speed and the use of the entire 860 ft flight deck length and ski jump would permit CTOL launches without the use of catapults. Aircraft requiring additional thrust would be equipped with JATO bottles as required...."
&
"...4.1.4 Super-Island Arrangements
The S-CVX's island is one of the carrier's more novel attributes. Figure 4.1-10 shows the island's location on the flight deck. The island was moved from its conventional location for two reasons. First, we wanted to maintain the traditional aircraft flow pattern of land left - launch right. Second, the MNS requirement to launch and recover legacy CTOL aircraft in emergency situations necessitated a full clear deck take-off and landing zone; moving the island to the port side provided the needed real-estate...."

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 13:43
by count_to_10
I don't see why future carriers won't eliminate the island entirely in favor of one or more sensor masts. Is there really a need to have actual personnel up above the flight deck instead of bellow, watching everything on CC monitors?

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 18:55
by spazsinbad
Did you get that idea from reading the PDF? That is an option.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 20:32
by count_to_10
Actually, I just started looking at the pdf now.
3.1.2 Automated Aviation Weapons Handling
Beyond flight deck operations, the next most manpower intensive activity on an aircraft
carrier is the handling of aviation weapons. In order to achieve our reduced manning
requirements, this is an area that must be addressed.

Reading this, I suddenly had an image of a sci-fi fully automated arming system with robot arms swarming the jet to attach all of the ordinance in a matter of seconds. Something Ironman-ish.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 21:04
by count_to_10
One thing I don't quite get -- they state that "departure from the monohull form offered no significant advantages", and then they decide to put the island on the ship center-line, with VTOL pads on the left and STO runway on the right. If you are stuck with a monohull, don't you need the landing positions to be on the center line so that the ship roll doesn't smack the deck into your aircraft as you land?
My argument would be that outriggers not only stabilize the roll of the ship, but also allow you to slope the outer walls inward to reduce radar cross section.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 21:14
by spazsinbad
I like the way back in 1998 that these planners were so concerned about the effects of the STOVL aircraft on personnel. Good to be concerned but it is WAY OVER THE TOP!

'count_to_10' comment about roll seems reasonable.

CVF weapon handling is much more automated - reducing required personnel significantly apparently.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 21:27
by count_to_10
Another strange thing -- they seem to be completely writing off CATOBAR aircraft. There are no catapults, and the landing scenarios they consider are vertical or a conventional (as in F-35A, not F-35B) with Air Force style arestment gear and a long run out.
The lack of nuclear power is also notable.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 22:32
by spazsinbad
This is an aircraft carrier for STOVL aircraft with a capability to handle conventional aircraft IN AN EMERGENCY ONLY. CTOL [I mean CATOBAR] land on arrest then takeoff via the low angle 6 degree ramp (which I gather is NOT 12 degrees as it is optimised for F-35B/CVF, due to this consideration). CTOL [I mean CATOBAR] aircraft can make use of this ramp to get airborne to return to their proper place with whatever load these conditions allow. CTOL ops are not permanent for this carrier.

I don't know where you have the idea that this aircraft carrier is for use with F-35As? The EMERGENCY trap facility is for the F-35C with conventional USN aircraft carrier arrest gear as shown in the position in the graphic above.

Addition: Meant to state that only CATOBAR aircraft possible. (CTOL was a incorrect reference to 'USN conventional aircraft'. I find those terms just silly whereas for example F-35C or F-35B or F-35A say exactly what is required.)

BTW USMC flat decks are non-nuke. Why would a new STOVL flat deck NOT be non-nuke?

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 23:42
by popcorn
In the Future Aircraft Carrier Study performed by the Naval Air Engineering Center [1] it was shown that the F/A-18 using a 6 degree ramp can take-off at maximum weight with only a 400 foot roll out..

and yet we've been told all these years that the Russian Sukhois and MiGs flying off their STOBAR carriers are don't come,near their MTOWs?

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 23:53
by count_to_10
I'm probably getting lost in the lingo -- there was a lot of talk about "conventional aircraft" that involved "long roll-outs" rather than cats and traps... and I really only skimmed it, so I the part about "as an alternative to nuclear power" had me thinking this was about the next generation of CV's. The air wing looks more like a CVN's than an amphib.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2013, 00:03
by spazsinbad
'count_to_ten' yes the language used is a bit odd. I guess because the 'planners' were non-aviation USN mostly as per: "This report documents a systems engineering and design capstone project undertaken by students in the Total Ship Systems Engineering (TSSE) program at the United States Naval Postgraduate School and performed over two academic quarters. The project was under the direction of Professors C. N. Calvano and R. Harney. The design team consisted of: LT Neil Meister, USCG; LT Jim Melvin, USN; LT Thuy Do, USN; LT Eric Legear, USN, LT Kathryn Christensen, USN; LT Steve Debus, USN and Mr. Mike McClatchey, Office of Naval Intelligence." So their use of "conventional" (as was mine initially) referring to 'conventional USN aircraft'.

Yes this 'plan' was for an 'A Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) Aircraft Carrier (S-CVX)' which I gather would be operated by USN (as are the LHAs, having a USN crew but otherwise USMC personnel/aircraft). The plan is a final project exercise 'capstone' as per the ABSTRACT above:

ABSTRACT [1998]
"This report documents a systems engineering and design capstone project, directed by the Total Ship Systems Engineering (TSSE) faculty and undertaken by students in the TSSE program at the Naval Postgraduate School and performed over two academic quarters. It takes a fresh look at the basic design and operation of the modern aircraft carrier, assuming availability of short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, employing gas turbine ship propulsion and providing significant capability to support humanitarian operations. In the design study reported here, the authors take a systems engineering approach to a totally new carrier design which may best suit the requirements for the next generation aircraft carrier. The central goal was to provide a ship to meet all of the current mission requirements of the existing Nimitz class carriers but in a platform that is significantly lower in life cycle costs. The outcome is a ship based on a concept called "super-island"; a large island structure that can provides drive-through "pitstops" for aircraft refueling and rearming as well as other major functions. Other areas of major innovation include: weapons handling, information processing and distribution, engineering layout and manning. The report provides an overview of the major ship systems as well as detailed discussions of selected design areas chosen to illustrate those systems that had the most impact on meeting design goals."

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2013, 00:14
by spazsinbad
'popcorn' the USN/USMC/USAF studies for ramps either on flat decks or on land are in the 'very long thread'. Claims about Russian ski jump aircraft are what they are. Do you have any studies from Russia?

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2013, 02:45
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:'popcorn' the USN/USMC/USAF studies for ramps either on flat decks or on land are in the 'very long thread'. Claims about Russian ski jump aircraft are what they are. Do you have any studies from Russia?


None,,Spaz.., it just caught my attention as something to be reconciled,with what I understand to be prevailing wisdom,on the limitation of Russian STOBAR designs..

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2013, 06:19
by spazsinbad
'popcorn' I have been attempting to find out more about the ski jump tests to add to whatever is in the 'very long thread'. This snippet (there is more at the link if interested) may not have made it into the 'vlt'. Perhaps this single engine performance is a consideration forgotten about when the statement about the F/A-18 was made above: "...Maximum capability with the F-14A was not achieved due to single engine considerations. With longitudinal trim set properly, stick free ski jump takeoff is possible. A stick free ski jump launch is an easier maneuver than a normal field takeoff. Any operational CTOL ski jump airplane should have a Head-Up Display (HUD), nosewheel steering, stability augmentation in all axes, and an accurate, repeatable flight control trim system. Investigation should continue to fully define the application of the ski jump takeoff to both Shipboard and Shorebased use.” http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=41054

As I recall I took only the STOVL aircraft test results/text from the PDF? pub below and may have discarded the rest?

UNITED STATES NAVY SKI JUMP EXPERIENCE AND FUTURE APPLICATIONS

Here is the link repeated: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA244869

Sadly this link does not work now but may be easily refindable because usually the ADA244869 reference remains the same. I may be some time. :D
_____________

Halfway down the page on this forum on the 'vlt' is the initial reference:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-660.html
___________________

http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA244869

PDF here: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf (16.7Mb)

The SKI JUMP section starts on page 259 to 273. Rather than attempt to extract the difficult to read text and graphics and numbers I'll attach this section here.

Now the 15 page extract is attached, the relevant SKI JUMP for USN aircraft testing starts on PAGE 5 to the end.

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2013, 20:25
by beepa
Here is a new video of HMAS Adelaide under construction, gotta love time lapse!

http://youtu.be/n7K4sP29xFc

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2013, 20:41
by spazsinbad
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.

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 17:25
by firstimpulse
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.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 00:48
by count_to_10
I'm sure construction goes faster when you aren't building a one- or two-off ship class.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 00:50
by spazsinbad
Why?

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 00:57
by count_to_10
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.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2013, 07:16
by KamenRiderBlade
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?

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2013, 08:30
by spazsinbad
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

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2013, 09:32
by whitewhale
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.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2013, 09:49
by spazsinbad
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

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2013, 10:34
by whitewhale
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.

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2013, 10:51
by spazsinbad
'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:

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2013, 10:48
by spazsinbad
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

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2013, 18:18
by whitewhale
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.

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2013, 22:39
by spazsinbad
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

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2013, 06:43
by lookieloo
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.

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2013, 22:28
by lookieloo
Looks like 22DDH is finally in the water. Now called DDH-183 Izumo

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... Since-WWII

Question is: will they or won't they...?

Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carrier

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2013, 22:33
by neptune
http://news.yahoo.com/japan-unveils-lar ... 34811.html

Japan unveils largest warship since World War II

YOKOHAMA, Japan (AP) -- Japan on Tuesday unveiled its biggest warship since World War II, a huge flat-top destroyer that has raised eyebrows in China and elsewhere because it bears a strong resemblance to a conventional aircraft carrier.

The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters. Japanese officials say it will be used in national defense — particularly in anti-submarine warfare and border-area surveillance missions — and to bolster the nation's ability to transport personnel and supplies in response to large-scale natural disasters, like the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

Though the ship — dubbed "Izumo" — has been in the works since 2009, its unveiling comes as Japan and China are locked in a dispute over several small islands located between southern Japan and Taiwan. For months, ships from both countries have been conducting patrols around the isles, called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyutai in China.

The tensions over the islands, along with China's heavy spending on defense and military modernization, have heightened calls in Japan for beefed-up naval and air forces. China recently began operating an aircraft carrier that it refurbished after purchasing from Russia, and is reportedly moving forward with the construction of another that is domestically built.

Japan, China and Taiwan all claim the islands.

Though technically a destroyer, some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically (F-35??). That would be a departure for Japan, which has one of the best equipped and best trained naval forces in the Pacific but which has not sought to build aircraft carriers of its own because of constitutional restrictions that limit its military forces to a defensive role.

Japan says it has no plans to use the ship in that manner.

The Izumo does not have catapults for launching fighters, nor does it have a "ski-jump" ramp on its flight deck for fixed-wing aircraft launches.

no more at the jump! :)

..

RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carrier

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2013, 22:37
by spazsinbad
The head of JEFF has a good lot of info including an F-35B scenario: The beamy width is reminsiscent of the CVF - in a mini form - great for STOVL ops. :twisted:
"SPECIFICATIONS
Designation: CVL (DDH)
Length: 815 ft
Width: 125 ft "Never mind the quality tonnage - feel the width"
Beam: 110 ft
Displacement: 27,000 tons (full load)
Propulsion: 4 GE LM2500 COGAG, 2 shafts
Speed: 30+ knots
Crew: 970 (Includes Air Wing)
Airwing: (Up to)
- 12 F-35B JSF
- 08 V-22 Osprey

- 08 ASW & SAR Helos
Armament:
- 2 x 21 Cell RAM (or 2 x SEARAM)
- 2 x 20mm Phalanx CIWS
- 2 x Triple 324mm topedoe[sic] tubes
Elevators: 2
Ships in class: 2 Planned

DDH-183, Kaga (Building)
DDH-184, Unnamed (Building)"

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldw ... /22ddh.htm

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldw ... H-0008.jpg

Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carrier

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2013, 23:34
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:The head of JEFF has a good lot of info including an F-35B scenario: The beamy width is reminsiscent of the CVF - in a mini form - great for STOVL ops. :twisted:
For political reasons, I think the Japanese are going to let China take the lead here. Solomon posted some pics of what he thought was a Chinese LHD http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/ ... n-via.html Obviously, that cross-section is NOT an amphib (flared top, and just a hole for the hanger with no well-deck); it is the cross-section of a proper carrier. What's more, upon closer inspection, there appears to be a catapult-trench. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2a3fbfab3851

I suspect the Japanese will wait for the Chinese ship to take shape before any decision is made regarding F-35B purchases. I have to admit it's clever... let the Chinese threat present itself, then start modifying hulls for Bee-ops. That'll give them 2-4 carriers quickly without ever having announced an intention to build such ships.

RE: Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carri

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 00:00
by count_to_10
27,000 tons? For a "Destroyer"?
That's getting pretty close to the old Washington treaty displacement limit for a Battleship.

Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carrier

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 00:35
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote: Solomon posted some pics of what he thought was a Chinese LHD http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/ ... n-via.html Obviously, that cross-section is NOT an amphib (flared top, and just a hole for the hanger with no well-deck); it is the cross-section of a proper carrier. What's more, upon closer inspection, there appears to be a catapult-trench.


Just for the record, Solomon is a f**king moron who claims to be a Marine. I'm convinced he is a teen boy or an old, gun nut, wannabe. Its clear he has never served, and he often fails on very basic facets of Marine Corps Knowledge, and fails even worse on anything more complex than that.

I have steered fellow Marines to look at his blog, half of them laughed, the other half were so frustrated by the fail they refused to read further, but we almost all agreed he is not a Marine. The only opinions that differed thought he might be one, but a very low information, low rank, low time type that was never given much authority or responsibility, and thus is guessing (wrongly) about how the Marines and other services actually operate. He has no problem insulting his posters, but when the same level of courtesy is returned he suddenly becomes very thin skinned and begins deleting posts (You will never guess how I know this)

He has flat out admitted he knows little about aviation or engineering, and basically reacts to headlines with over the top stupid, and no actual research whatsoever. A reactionary loudmouth idiot unworthy of even Key pubs.

Please feel free to share what I have said with your friends.

count_to_10 wrote:27,000 tons? For a "Destroyer"?
That's getting pretty close to the old Washington treaty displacement limit for a Battleship.


The Japanese are not allowed to have official "Aircraft Carriers" so they have helicopter destroyers. :wink:

RE: Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carri

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 01:09
by spazsinbad
'XanderCrews': Ummm... 'lookieloo' posted that quote incorrectly attributed to me. I have my own issues with 'solomon' from our mutual interaction when I first joined this board to start the 'very long thread' about F-35Bs on small LHDs including the OzWegian variety. I would agree he seems to me to know little about aviation in general but any other facets of his USMC knowledge I have no clue (nor am I interested).

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC c.16 Jul 2009 entries and before
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... mon#156472

RE: Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carri

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 01:51
by cantaz
Treaty battleship, meet constitutional carrier. :mrgreen:

Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carrier

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 05:01
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:The head of JEFF has a good lot of info including an F-35B scenario: The beamy width is reminsiscent of the CVF - in a mini form - great for STOVL ops. :twisted:
"SPECIFICATIONS
Designation: CVL (DDH)
Length: 815 ft
Width: 125 ft "Never mind the quality tonnage - feel the width"
Beam: 110 ft
Displacement: 27,000 tons (full load)
Propulsion: 4 GE LM2500 COGAG, 2 shafts
Speed: 30+ knots
Crew: 970 (Includes Air Wing)
Airwing: (Up to)
- 12 F-35B JSF
- 08 V-22 Osprey

- 08 ASW & SAR Helos
Armament:
- 2 x 21 Cell RAM (or 2 x SEARAM)
- 2 x 20mm Phalanx CIWS
- 2 x Triple 324mm topedoe[sic] tubes
Elevators: 2
Ships in class: 2 Planned

DDH-183, Kaga (Building)
DDH-184, Unnamed (Building)"

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldw ... /22ddh.htm

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldw ... H-0008.jpg


Such a Aircraft Carrier equipped with F-35B's. Would be much more capable than the India's Vikramaditya or China's Liaoning. :wink:

Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carrier

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 05:15
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:The head of JEFF has a good lot of info including an F-35B scenario: The beamy width is reminsiscent of the CVF - in a mini form - great for STOVL ops. :twisted:
Such a Aircraft Carrier equipped with F-35B's. Would be much more capable than the India's Vikramaditya or China's Liaoning. :wink:
Dunno about that. Despite being nice piece of kit, Izumo isn't that big by carrier standards (it's even smaller than Cavour).

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 05:16
by Corsair1963
Only a matter of time before the Japanese Navy purchases the F-35B. :twisted:

Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carrier

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 05:19
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:The head of JEFF has a good lot of info including an F-35B scenario: The beamy width is reminsiscent of the CVF - in a mini form - great for STOVL ops. :twisted:
Such a Aircraft Carrier equipped with F-35B's. Would be much more capable than the India's Vikramaditya or China's Liaoning. :wink:
Dunno about that. Despite being nice piece of kit, Izumo isn't that big by carrier standards (it's even smaller than Cavour).



How big is the Air Wing for the Indian and Chinese Carriers. Plus, the fact that the F-35B is vastly more capable than the Mig-29K and/or J-15.



No contest as they say....... :wink:

Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carrier

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 05:27
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:The head of JEFF has a good lot of info including an F-35B scenario: The beamy width is reminsiscent of the CVF - in a mini form - great for STOVL ops. :twisted:
Such a Aircraft Carrier equipped with F-35B's. Would be much more capable than the India's Vikramaditya or China's Liaoning. :wink:
Dunno about that. Despite being nice piece of kit, Izumo isn't that big by carrier standards (it's even smaller than Cavour).



You also wrong about the Izumo being smaller that the Cavour.......


Length Cavour 800 ft Izumo 815 ft

Bean Cavour 128 ft Izumo 125 ft

Displacement ~27,000 tons for both....... :idea:

Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carrier

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 06:17
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:You also wrong about the Izumo being smaller that the Cavour.......
Pedantics... Max load for Izumo is low-end for Cavour; and yes, I'm going with displacement. In any case, embarking F-35Bs is pure speculation for now; so I don't think the Chinese/Indians have much to be jealous about. Even if Japan signed up for F-35Bs tomorrow, it's still unlikely this class could handle more than 12 on a routine basis.

That said, the Chinese might have reason to worry if... say... they had to deal with 3 regional navies operating 2 "pocket carriers" apiece.

RE: Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carri

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 06:20
by spazsinbad
Looks like a PLAN: "...3 regional navies operating 2 "pocket carriers" apiece." :D

RE: Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carri

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 06:24
by spazsinbad
VIDEO: YouTube: Launch of JMSDF DDH183 Izumo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48MyCyuQ_7g

Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carrier

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 09:23
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:You also wrong about the Izumo being smaller that the Cavour.......
Pedantics... Max load for Izumo is low-end for Cavour; and yes, I'm going with displacement. In any case, embarking F-35Bs is pure speculation for now; so I don't think the Chinese/Indians have much to be jealous about. Even if Japan signed up for F-35Bs tomorrow, it's still unlikely this class could handle more than 12 on a routine basis.

That said, the Chinese might have reason to worry if... say... they had to deal with 3 regional navies operating 2 "pocket carriers" apiece.



She should be able to handle 18. Which, is about with the Indian and Chinese Carriers can take. Plus, like I said the F-35B is "vastly" more capable than the Mig-29K or J-15. I doubt either CARRIER would want to face the F-35B is real combat.........

RE: Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ Carri

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2013, 12:37
by jetnerd
She should be able to handle 18. Which, is about with the Indian and Chinese Carriers can take.


Not my favorite source for "hard facts", but this posting in Strategypage seems to suggest otherwise for the Chinese carriers to follow the Liaoning/ Varyag that they have now:
http://strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/ar ... 30806.aspx

it will be nice to see the Japanese operating B's off the Izumo. With the Kunetsov and the Vikramaditya, these should provide a nice regionally balancing force together with the George Washington & rotating US carrier presence.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ C

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2013, 02:25
by count_to_10
cantaz wrote:Treaty battleship, meet constitutional carrier. :mrgreen:

Nice.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroyer/ C

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2013, 02:56
by Corsair1963
jetnerd wrote:
She should be able to handle 18. Which, is about with the Indian and Chinese Carriers can take.


Not my favorite source for "hard facts", but this posting in Strategypage seems to suggest otherwise for the Chinese carriers to follow the Liaoning/ Varyag that they have now:
http://strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/ar ... 30806.aspx

it will be nice to see the Japanese operating B's off the Izumo. With the Kunetsov and the Vikramaditya, these should provide a nice regionally balancing force together with the George Washington & rotating US carrier presence.


I heard a rumor that its a LHA/LHD not a Chinese CVN??? :?:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroye

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2013, 03:29
by spazsinbad

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroye

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2013, 04:06
by Corsair1963
Interesting.................I am sure India, Japan, South Korea, and a number of other countries are watching closely!

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Izumo, Japan unveils Helicopter Destroye

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2013, 21:05
by jetnerd
I heard a rumor that its a LHA/LHD not a Chinese CVN???


China does not appear to be working on any fixed-wing platforms that could operate from a smaller carrier, and the fact that they are operating naval Flankers from their training carrier seems to back up the Strategypage article's assertion of a larger, Constellation/ USS America style conventional carrier as their next hull. I seriously doubt it will be a CVN. The Chinese seem to have been very methodical in the way they've gone about putting Liaoning to sea and then subsequently training her "air wing". I think the Chinese are, for better or worse, betting on big-deck carriers for the long term future, and will do what it takes to make them effective.

As such, I will feel a lot better if Izumo eventually added F-35B's because of this - I think they could have a fully operational squadron or 2 by the time the next Chinese carrier put to sea.

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2013, 02:36
by popcorn
If the Japanese do decide to get into the ship-borne fast jet business, the F-35B makes sense in an expeditionary context. Even in such a scenario, Japan will likely act in concert with coalition partners equipped with such assets.
In the context of it's territorial disputes with China and Russia, land-based air power has adequate reach and seems adequate IMO.

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2013, 02:53
by count_to_10
Japan really needs to rationalize it's constitution. They are basically violating it now just by having a navy at all, and they should really be able to hold their own militarily.

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2013, 02:54
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:If the Japanese do decide to get into the ship-borne fast jet business, the F-35B makes sense in an expeditionary context.
I would say that embarking F-35Bs on the Izumo makes better since in a sea-control context. After all, that is what the ship is mainly for, jets or no jets.

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2013, 02:59
by popcorn
Deleted.

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2013, 05:58
by lookieloo
Hmm... been poking around some other forums. Seems a number of people think the Japanese are fudging numbers regarding the ship's size. Jeff Head thinks it might weigh up to 35,000 tons under a full load, so I might have underestimated its air-wing. 18-20 fighters might not be so unrealistic after all.

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2013, 23:20
by count_to_10
lookieloo wrote:Hmm... been poking around some other forums. Seems a number of people think the Japanese are fudging numbers regarding the ship's size. Jeff Head thinks it might weigh up to 35,000 tons under a full load, so I might have underestimated its air-wing. 18-20 fighters might not be so unrealistic after all.

Well, that would be interesting/ironic: 35,000 tons is the Washington Naval Treaty limit for battleships.
Although, just looking it up now, there was a separate displacement limit for aircraft carriers of 27.000 tons.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 01:09
by batu731
I wonder why Japan needs carriers, its not like the (pre)WW2 era when they had to compete with other powers in the deep ocean.

They have a geographical advantage to the PLA navy, all they need is a good land based air force and a submarine fleet to leverage it. They don't have to play the fair game, especially when the huge American military power in the region is their friend

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 02:14
by popcorn
batu731 wrote:I wonder why Japan needs carriers, its not like the (pre)WW2 era when they had to compete with other powers in the deep ocean.

They have a geographical advantage to the PLA navy, all they need is a good land based air force and a submarine fleet to leverage it. They don't have to play the fair game, especially when the huge American military power in the region is their friend


My thoughts as well.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 02:15
by popcorn
batu731 wrote:I wonder why Japan needs carriers, its not like the (pre)WW2 era when they had to compete with other powers in the deep ocean.

They have a geographical advantage to the PLA navy, all they need is a good land based air force and a submarine fleet to leverage it. They don't have to play the fair game, especially when the huge American military power in the region is their friend


My thoughts as well.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 03:06
by count_to_10
batu731 wrote:I wonder why Japan needs carriers, its not like the (pre)WW2 era when they had to compete with other powers in the deep ocean.

They have a geographical advantage to the PLA navy, all they need is a good land based air force and a submarine fleet to leverage it. They don't have to play the fair game, especially when the huge American military power in the region is their friend

They can't have bases everywhere, particularly their more distant islands, and the ASW helos really need to be based fairly close to where they are trying to find subs in order to spend much time on station.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 04:52
by aaam
batu731 wrote:I wonder why Japan needs carriers, its not like the (pre)WW2 era when they had to compete with other powers in the deep ocean.

They have a geographical advantage to the PLA navy, all they need is a good land based air force and a submarine fleet to leverage it. They don't have to play the fair game, especially when the huge American military power in the region is their friend


But they have to look out for themselves as a first priortiy. The US is far away, would take time to ramp up, and how certain are they the US would respond, depending on the situation?

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 06:15
by spazsinbad
The USofA is in Okinawa amongst other places in Japan:

U.S. and Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement March 8, 1954
"Background
Amid the Korean Conflict and the balance-of-power struggle with China and the Soviet Union, the United States continued to rebuild Japan. On September 8, 1951, the United States and Japan signed the Mutual Security Treaty, which stationed U.S. troops on Japanese soil for the defense of Japan. On March 8, 1954, the countries signed the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (entered into force May 1, 1954), which focused on defense assistance. It allowed for the presence of U.S. armed forces in Japan for the purpose of peace and security while encouraging Japan to take on more responsibility for its own defense, rearming in a manner suited for defensive, rather than offensive, purposes."

http://www.learner.org/workshops/primar ... japan.html
_____________

U.S. Says Disputed Islands Covered by Japan Defense Treaty By Bloomberg News - 2012-09-21
"U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said islands at the heart of a dispute between Japan and China fall under an American defense pact with Japan, while urging the sides to resolve the standoff via diplomacy...."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-2 ... japan.html

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 15:19
by southernphantom
aaam is right. Even if the US would respond (questionable due to 'leadership'...), the time to move significant assets into the theater would be days at best. The JSDF needs high-end capability in the interim period to at least contest the PLA.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 15:42
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:... On September 8, 1951, the United States and Japan signed the Mutual Security Treaty, which stationed U.S. troops on Japanese soil for the defense of Japan. ..U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said islands at the heart of a dispute between Japan and China fall under an American defense pact with Japan, while urging the sides to resolve the standoff via diplomacy...


When you live on an island, every little bit counts.

The natural resources for the commerce of Japan are little and non-existent. Thus WWII occurred when the US embargoed fuel to Japan, for cause.

Today, Japan is still vulnerable to maritime traffic and control. The protection of their maritime commerce (the life blood of their society) is paramount beyond the academic. These vessels will define their interests and demonstrate the resolve necessary to insure the protection of their sea lanes, the same as the US Navy. Since US politicians abhor any plan, they would gladly rescind any and all treaties, pacts, etc. to allow them to renegotiate a better financial deal to their own best self interest.

While the US is fiddling, Japan will burn. :oops:

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 19:10
by spazsinbad
An internet search will reveal the 'piffling to some it seems' US assets already stationed in Japan. I guess a CVN is a trifle to some. I'm not going to list the other assets because these can be easily revealed. I'm surprised - perhaps not so surprised - at the dismissal of these US Force assets deliberately stationed there permanently by some on this forum. Suits your arguments I guess which should be about the F-35 which itself is dismissed as 'not proven' by some also. What a weird planet we inhabit.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 20:41
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:An internet search will reveal the 'piffling to some it seems' US assets already stationed in Japan. I guess a CVN is a trifle to some. I'm not going to list the other assets because these can be easily revealed. I'm surprised - perhaps not so surprised - at the dismissal of these US Force assets deliberately stationed there permanently by some on this forum. Suits your arguments I guess which should be about the F-35 which itself is dismissed as 'not proven' by some also. What a weird planet we inhabit.


Couldn't agree more Spaz. The 3rd Marine Division and 1st Marine Air Wing is headquartered in Okinawa for crying out loud!! That is a full 3rd of the combat power of the United States Marine Corps!! If you include the 1st Marine Division, and 3rd Marine Air wing who are also responsible for the Pacific and on the West coast of the US, thats 2/3 of the USMC. And we haven't even started talking about all the USAF, US Army, and of course USN assets in Japan, Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines, and scattered all over the pacific as we speak

Don't think for a second that Japan is sitting alone and undefended, the US is overtly and as obviously as possible prepared to defend Japan. Its not just words, its actions, US Forces have been living there for more than 60 years. the US has already publicly made clear that the first F-35 deployment will be to Japan as well.

I find it more than a tad hard to believe that we would sacrifice whole percentages of Americans and their billions of dollars of equipment while letting a sworn ally "burn" We are talking about Pearl Harbor times ten here, I don't see us negotiating do you?

Gentleman, this is APA level of "analysis" The kind of analysis where we make up our minds first with based on no evidence ( a few google searches will give you an idea of the forces arrayed in Japan, and then even more forces in the area, and more forces that can be surged) then jump to a conclusion not supported by any facts then inserting a healthy does of overblown garbage panic! (Japan burns!! while lying politicos make money!!) that is not at all rooted in any kind of reality.

Even the biggest pessimist would have to agree that at the very least the US has "hostage forces" in Japan. How China would destroy Japan without eliminating US Forces in the process and enraging the United States is beyond me, even if Americans were ordered not to return fire.

U.S. military strength in Japan is about 38,000 ashore and 11,000 afloat, and U.S. forces are dispersed among 85 facilities located on Honshu, Kyushu, and Okinawa. Total acreage of U.S. bases is approximately 77,000 acres. USFJ bases and facilities range in size from a several thousand acre training area to a single antenna site.


http://www.usfj.mil/

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 22:59
by newmanfrigan
No President will stand by while Japan is attacked. It would be treated as seriously as an attack on Pearl Harbor. This is a little different than deciding whether or not to arm the Syrian rebels...in other words, there would be no choice at all. If the USA doesn't stand up for Japan, then no ally can believe in our pledges. It's would be simply unthinkable, contrary to our interests, and devestating to our credibility. There really is no debate to be had here at all. Now, if we elect Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich, maybe things change a bit, but no establishment politician can deviate from this.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 23:47
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:An internet search will reveal the 'piffling to some it seems' US assets already stationed in Japan. I guess a CVN is a trifle to some. I'm not going to list the other assets because these can be easily revealed. I'm surprised - perhaps not so surprised - at the dismissal of these US Force assets deliberately stationed there permanently by some on this forum. Suits your arguments I guess which should be about the F-35 which itself is dismissed as 'not proven' by some also. What a weird planet we inhabit.


Indeed,. There's a reason the US 7th Fleet is headquartered in Yokosuka.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 08:04
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:
batu731 wrote:I wonder why Japan needs carriers, its not like the (pre)WW2 era when they had to compete with other powers in the deep ocean.

They have a geographical advantage to the PLA navy, all they need is a good land based air force and a submarine fleet to leverage it. They don't have to play the fair game, especially when the huge American military power in the region is their friend
My thoughts as well.
True enough in the context of war, but the key to controlling disputed island-territories without a war is maintaining an actual presence in the area; and that can't be done very well with just submarines or aircraft flying all the way from Japan. With or without the F-35B, ships like the Izumo are needed.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 09:30
by popcorn
lookieloo wrote:
popcorn wrote:
batu731 wrote:I wonder why Japan needs carriers, its not like the (pre)WW2 era when they had to compete with other powers in the deep ocean.

They have a geographical advantage to the PLA navy, all they need is a good land based air force and a submarine fleet to leverage it. They don't have to play the fair game, especially when the huge American military power in the region is their friend
My thoughts as well.
True enough in the context of war, but the key to controlling disputed island-territories without a war is maintaining an actual presence in the area; and that can't be done very well with just submarines or aircraft flying all the way from Japan. With or without the F-35B, ships like the Izumo are needed.


Yes, ships provide presence. Izumo is one type of warship among a number of types available to provide presence and project power if needed. The point in question is the imperative for Japan to develop a fast-jet TACAIR capability. The contested territories, in particular, are right in Japan's back and front yards, well within coverage of a land-based aviation umbrella. Throw in a Kongo AWD with AEGIS, Patriot, subs, etc and Japan can establish a mean A2/AD zone of it's own if it wanted to.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 17:54
by slowman.
The 22DDH class will not operate the F-35Bs; it doesn't have the thermal shielding on the flight deck needed to operate STOVL jets like Harrier and F-35.

What Japan is trying to do is to prepare for the day the domestic and international(US approval) political environment can support aircraft carriers; Japan then could build its CBGs within 5 years because the experience is already there, just like how Japan is ready to be nuclear armed in 6 months with its stockpile of hundred tons of plutonium.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 18:46
by lookieloo
slowman. wrote:...Japan is ready to be nuclear armed in 6 months with its stockpile of hundred tons of plutonium.
Didn't you hear? They used it all to make that tsunami. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 18:52
by hb_pencil
slowman. wrote:The 22DDH class will not operate the F-35Bs; it doesn't have the thermal shielding on the flight deck needed to operate STOVL jets like Harrier and F-35.

What Japan is trying to do is to prepare for the day the domestic and international(US approval) political environment can support aircraft carriers; Japan then could build its CBGs within 5 years because the experience is already there, just like how Japan is ready to be nuclear armed in 6 months with its stockpile of hundred tons of plutonium.


Wrong.

The Izumo does not have the thermal matting but has oversized elevators and large hangar spaces. Those are real limitations that cannot be easily addressed after a ship is launched, like with the Hyuga and Ise. If you said those two then yes, they wouldn't operate the F-35. However the Izumo Class will likely require the same sort of modifications that U.S. LHSs will undergo to operate the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 19:14
by slowman.
hb_pencil wrote:Wrong.

The Izumo does not have the thermal matting but has oversized elevators and large hangar spaces. Those are real limitations that cannot be easily addressed after a ship is launched, like with the Hyuga and Ise. If you said those two then yes, they wouldn't operate the F-35. However the Izumo Class will likely require the same sort of modifications that U.S. LHSs will undergo to operate the F-35.

The 16DDH and 22DDH class ships have specific roles to fulfill; anti-sub warfare to protect the rest of fleet from sub threats, and JMSDF simply cannot divert 22DDH ships for carrier roles and leave the fleet unprotected from subs.

If JMSDF needs carriers, it will build new ones, not divert existing ASW ships for light carrier role.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 22:15
by cantaz
slowman. wrote:If JMSDF needs carriers, it will build new ones, not divert existing ASW ships for light carrier role.


But it would be quicker and cheaper to build more ASW frigates, destroyers and land-based ASW aircraft than to build more Izumos. In fact, Japan possesses a substantial amount of surface, sub-surface and air ASW assets even excluding the Izumo, so I don't believe converting an Izumo into a light CV is all that detrimental to JMSDF's ASW position.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 23:00
by hb_pencil
slowman. wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:Wrong.

The Izumo does not have the thermal matting but has oversized elevators and large hangar spaces. Those are real limitations that cannot be easily addressed after a ship is launched, like with the Hyuga and Ise. If you said those two then yes, they wouldn't operate the F-35. However the Izumo Class will likely require the same sort of modifications that U.S. LHSs will undergo to operate the F-35.

The 16DDH and 22DDH class ships have specific roles to fulfill; anti-sub warfare to protect the rest of fleet from sub threats, and JMSDF simply cannot divert 22DDH ships for carrier roles and leave the fleet unprotected from subs.

If JMSDF needs carriers, it will build new ones, not divert existing ASW ships for light carrier role.


Uhh, they can and will easily do that role... its part of their operational doctrine. The Helicopter destroyers are seen as multi-role vessels, able to support forces in military operations other than war as well as ASW. Its really one doctrinal step (and several billion dollars of refits) away from being an full carrier.

Moreover these vessels' ASW's needs are actually quite limited. The Izumo replaces the Shirane Class, which were older helicopter destroyers with only three SH-60s. Izumo carries 14... so it has plenty of room to spare. Considering the anti-access environment the MSDF expects to operate in, those helicopters and fleets require protection from airborne and shipborne threats, which is what an F-35 equipped 21DDH can do.

Finally the claim doesn't even make sense given the evidence. If ASW was its main purpose, why would the Izumo have the extra large elevator, hardened deck and large hangar space? Several smaller elevators would have been sufficient, or more 16DDH hulls.

Seriously, as with almost everything else you've said here, your views on this subject are wrong.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 23:10
by spazsinbad
'slowman' is a troll back from zombieland - he/IT will be gone soon enough.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 23:24
by slowman.
cantaz wrote:
slowman. wrote:But it would be quicker and cheaper to build more ASW frigates, destroyers and land-based ASW aircraft than to build more Izumos.

JMSDF won't build more 22DDHs.

In fact, Japan possesses a substantial amount of surface, sub-surface and air ASW assets even excluding the Izumo, so I don't believe converting an Izumo into a light CV is all that detrimental to JMSDF's ASW position.

JMSDF's operating area now extends to Taiwan and all the way to Philippines. which is trying to host an JMSDF fleet to the Subic Bay. As you can imagine, P-3s don't follow the fleet to the Taiwan Straits and the Subic Bay and the fleet is on its own.

hb_pencil wrote:Finally the claim doesn't even make sense given the evidence. If ASW was its main purpose, why would the Izumo have the extra large elevator, hardened deck and large hangar space? Several smaller elevators would have been sufficient, or more 16DDH hulls.

It has the secondary role of transporting V-22s be it USMC or the newly formed Japanese Marine units to retake the Senkaku Islands in the event of a Chinese landing. ASW + V-22 transport is more than enough for 22DDHs. F-35s will need to fine its own dedicated homes.

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 01:08
by count_to_10
So, slowman is back. This time with a "." instead of a number.

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 01:46
by spazsinbad
'slowman' is "creative".

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 02:20
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:'slowman' is "creative".
Well, "creative" as a 13 year-old Korean can be anyways. Pretty sure he has another J-20 bashing persona here as well.

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 02:39
by popcorn
LOL..He was predicting a loss in Korea would spook other countries into jumping ship, triggering the death spiral for the program... Now he forecast 40 X STOVL, jets for the ROK Navy.. big of him.LOL

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 07:18
by spazsinbad
Japanese ‘Helicopter Destroyer’ Stirs Regional Tensions 12 Aug 2013 Kyle Mizokami
"...China’s recent pressing claims on Japan’s Senkaku Islands (known as Diaoyu Islands in China) have caught Japan ill-prepared to defend them. Japan has few military bases in the area; China has not so vigorously pressed its claim as it has in the last three years. The Izumo and the rest of Japan’s amphibious and helicopter escort ships could theoretically provide air and sea lift to transport Japan’s nascent marine infantry, the Western Army Infantry Regiment based in southern Japan.

Negative reaction in Asia also is being driven by the fact that the Izumo appears to be an aircraft carrier, which is generally considered an offensive weapon. Suspicion of Japanese motives is historically rooted in Japan’s extended—often brutal—occupations in the past of Taiwan, Korea, and China. Japan’s neighbors also take a skeptical view of Japan’s Self-Defense Forces, which they see as an army, navy, and air force in all but name in a country where armed forces are constitutionally banned. Japan’s perceived bending of that law to accumulate defense capabilities fuels suspicions.

Indeed, there are no obvious technical obstacles to the Izumo carrying F-35Bs fighters. Some improvements the Izumo sports over the previous Hyuga class—such as moving defensive armament off the flight deck, and moving an elevator behind the island—support theories involving fixed-wing aircraft. Publicly, the JMSDF denies that the ships will be equipped with the F-35B."

http://news.usni.org/2013/08/12/japanes ... #more-4338

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 11:28
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Japanese ‘Helicopter Destroyer’ Stirs Regional Tensions 12 Aug 2013 Kyle Mizokami
"...China’s recent pressing claims on Japan’s Senkaku Islands (known as Diaoyu Islands in China) have caught Japan ill-prepared to defend them. Japan has few military bases in the area; China has not so vigorously pressed its claim as it has in the last three years. The Izumo and the rest of Japan’s amphibious and helicopter escort ships could theoretically provide air and sea lift to transport Japan’s nascent marine infantry, the Western Army Infantry Regiment based in southern Japan.

http://news.usni.org/2013/08/12/japanes ... #more-4338
This is exactly what I've been saying. Props to the Japanese for anticipating far-enough ahead to have these ships in the pipeline.

Question is: If China becomes more uppity around the islands with its TACAIR assets, how long would it take for Japan to put F-35Bs on its decks following a decision to do so? Last I checked, LM wasn't building "white-tails" to sell on short notice.

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 11:36
by spazsinbad
What are 'white-tails'?

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 12:16
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:What are 'white-tails'?
Extra planes funded by the manufacturer in anticipation of finding customers after the fact. Boeing has recently decided to do this with the C-17.

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 18:13
by slowman.
popcorn wrote:LOL..He was predicting a loss in Korea would spook other countries into jumping ship,

True. You will be witnessing political firestorms among JSF partner nations after the Korean F-X result is announced, where politicians will be comparing the winning bidder's term vs Lockheed's term and argue they too should go open bidding to extract maximum benefits. At least you heard the news in advance days before it hits state-side.

Now he forecast 40 X STOVL, jets for the ROK Navy.

It is not my personal forecast, but something called a news announcement.

Lookieloo was wondering why the news reporters were sounding like Slowman the other day; guess what, this is because Slowman was relaying the news development as they were developing all along.

lookieloo wrote:This is exactly what I've been saying. Props to the Japanese for anticipating far-enough ahead to have these ships in the pipeline.

This is nothing new. Japanese right wing politicians always planned to eventually return to having a normal military complete with CBGs and nukes.

Question is: If China becomes more uppity around the islands with its TACAIR assets, how long would it take for Japan to put F-35Bs on its decks following a decision to do so?

Around 5 years because that would be how long it takes to order , receive, and put into service F-35Bs. It is the F-35B that is the limiting factor, not the carrier construction.

And no, 16DDH and 22DDH are not designed for F-35B jet operations, new carriers are needed and that's fine with the Japanese government; they are on an arms-building program anyway and don't need to utilize existing ships to carry F-35Bs.

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 19:55
by gtx
Slowman, why don't you just **** off and let the grown ups discuss things.

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 20:51
by hb_pencil
slowman. wrote:
popcorn wrote:LOL..He was predicting a loss in Korea would spook other countries into jumping ship,

True. You will be witnessing political firestorms among JSF partner nations after the Korean F-X result is announced, where politicians will be comparing the winning bidder's term vs Lockheed's term and argue they too should go open bidding to extract maximum benefits. At least you heard the news in advance days before it hits state-side.


This might be the DUMBEST thing you've said. Partners in the program have ALL the data. The US could not sell to Koreans without partner tacit approval because of the structure of the program. This is elementary knowledge about the program that anybody who posts on here should know. Moreover the Price of units is exactly that which is paid by the US government, which is the party with the greatest leverage in the program.

Moreover partners derive vastly greater industrial benefits out of the program than FMS customers. Canada will obtain 33% more gross than what we would require through IRB (about $9 billion over a statutory $6~7 billion dollar legal requirement) and the quality of them will be significantly better than what normally get because they are long term industrial contracts on the production line. Recent changes to Canadian procurements (the "domestic benefit" regulations) only make the case for the F-35 even more attractive. No other program could offer what LM is able to do so in Canada.

Canada's reticence came not because the government was blindsided by cost, but it did not communicate those issues to the public. Back in 2010 DND had accomplished in-depth research on various costs of competitors and found that the F-35's cost was significantly below that of the other competitors. Since then those costs have not only been validated, but the business case for the other fighters have become worse.

The choice in Canada isn't about F-35 vs another competitor. Its really F-35 vs no fighter capability at all.


slowman. wrote:
Question is: If China becomes more uppity around the islands with its TACAIR assets, how long would it take for Japan to put F-35Bs on its decks following a decision to do so?

Around 5 years because that would be how long it takes to order , receive, and put into service F-35Bs. It is the F-35B that is the limiting factor, not the carrier construction.


Its much more complex than that. Ship-fighter integration requires several years of planning to accomplish, as the Queen Elisabeth Saga illustrates. Purchase to delivery is two and a half years for almost every program (unless you're buying second hand.) Training takes a year to two. With the JSDF already operating the F-35, they can legitimately expect to have a capability within four years.

slowman. wrote:And no, 16DDH and 22DDH are not designed for F-35B jet operations, new carriers are needed and that's fine with the Japanese government; they are on an arms-building program anyway and don't need to utilize existing ships to carry F-35Bs.


So Japan builds a carrier with all the capabilities required to carry the F-35B including deck hardenening, positioning and elevators. You admit they have a surface doctrine that defines defense of SLOC to the South China Sea (ie requiring tac-air protection outside of their land bases)... yet you continue to deny that they wouldn't consider placing fighters on their deck given they have the planned capability and doctrine to do so? Really the only issue here is the constitutional convention against carriers, which, after the Jiminto's upper house victory earlier this summer, will likely be removed from the constitution.

Nothing to me illustrates just how tortured your logic is on this matter than how you vehemently believe that the Japanese have a "secret" program to produce nuclear arms, yet completely deny that they might have a secret intention to purchase the F-35B when they have built carriers with all the capabilities to do so.

Is there any wonder why you've been banned here five times?

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 04:03
by indochina
So this will be a battle between the F-35B vs J-15!

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 05:32
by lookieloo
hb_pencil wrote:So Japan builds a carrier with all the capabilities required to carry the F-35B including deck hardenening, positioning and elevators. You admit they have a surface doctrine that defines defense of SLOC to the South China Sea (ie requiring tac-air protection outside of their land bases)... yet you continue to deny that they wouldn't consider placing fighters on their deck given they have the planned capability and doctrine to do so?
Well, like Oz, Japan did pinky-swear "no F-35Bs," and there might be something to it. Jeff Head is already speculating that it'll actually be another class (26DDH) that finally embarks the Bee as the Izumo-class is optimized more for troop-transport. That doesn't exclude to possibility of USMC F-35Bs running a few demonstrations though (a good way to make China $hit a brick).

Speaking of Oz... here's a piece on Canberra's progress (a few months old, but it includes a nice video).
http://www.news.com.au/technology/exclu ... 6639639652
Wish we could get such a tour of the Japanese boat.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 07:44
by hb_pencil
lookieloo wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:So Japan builds a carrier with all the capabilities required to carry the F-35B including deck hardenening, positioning and elevators. You admit they have a surface doctrine that defines defense of SLOC to the South China Sea (ie requiring tac-air protection outside of their land bases)... yet you continue to deny that they wouldn't consider placing fighters on their deck given they have the planned capability and doctrine to do so?
Well, like Oz, Japan did pinky-swear "no F-35Bs," and there might be something to it. Jeff Head is already speculating that it'll actually be another class (26DDH) that finally embarks the Bee as the Izumo-class is optimized more for troop-transport.



I don't think its realistic.

Looking at the past twenty years of the Japanese "defence buildup" that many have cited, really isn't one. Its pretty apparent that the government wants to keep the present force structure. 16 and 22 basically were follow-on replacements of in service craft: Shirane and Haruna classes. More broadly speaking, Minus the Osumi class and the Coast Guard, there hasn't been any growth in the actual fleet size. Rather Japan has been replacing current ships with newer, more powerful designs. This really follows Japanese naval doctrine since 1905: smaller but more technically advanced fleet.

The problem with fixed wing assets on carriers is that they require much higher numbers of crews. Izumo requires an extra 100 crew members over the Hyuga. If you're looking at a two crew system, then just to add one carrier adds 1000 seagoing crewmembers... not to mention dockyard support ect as well as a training/support pipeline for the aircraft. Two carriers probably adds 5000+ personnel to the JSDF. I just don't see the stomach for that in the Japanese government.

This is the real reason why I think you'll see the Izumo carry F-35Bs. Adding such a capability probably increases the JSDF 's personnel structure by only 200~300 individuals, and also avoids some real issues with their order of battle. Right now adding additional capital ships will really unbalance their fleets. The introduction of SM3 to the Atago and Kondo classes makes them an integral part of the the country's ABM system. That can remove several powerful combatants from their OOB during a crisis and prevent the MSDF to deploy an effective fleet with their current ship fleet. Adding more carriers just creates even more issues.

Really I think its much more likely to see the Izumo to be converted in the next few years. It doesn't appreciably alter their force structure of the order of battle. They really don't need more than that either.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 16:18
by slowman.
hb_pencil wrote:This might be the DUMBEST thing you've said. Partners in the program have ALL the data. The US could not sell to Koreans without partner tacit approval because of the structure of the program. This is elementary knowledge about the program that anybody who posts on here should know. Moreover the Price of units is exactly that which is paid by the US government, which is the party with the greatest leverage in the program.

I was talking about offset terms, which is offered directly by Lockheed Martin/USAF FMS representatives and they are free to make whatever offer they like. Hence this is why Israel and Korea were offered more generous offset terms than were JSF partner nations.

Moreover partners derive vastly greater industrial benefits out of the program than FMS customers. Canada will obtain 33% more gross than what we would require through IRB (about $9 billion over a statutory $6~7 billion dollar legal requirement) and the quality of them will be significantly better than what normally get because they are long term industrial contracts on the production line.

JSF partner nations get industrial participation contracts and that's it.
FMS customers get much more, including technology transfer(not necessarily related to F-35, but whatever the customer needs), satellites, free engineering service(not related to F-35), on top of industrial participation contracts.

Why is this? Because the F-35 program is desperate for additional sales to get out of the death spiral, so FMS customers in open bidding are offered much more generous terms to entice the customers compared to JSF partner nations. This is why JSF partner nations get more if they switch from no-bid acquisition to open bidding that includes F-35 FMS.

Recent changes to Canadian procurements (the "domestic benefit" regulations) only make the case for the F-35 even more attractive. No other program could offer what LM is able to do so in Canada.

Canadian government will have no choice but to go open bidding afterward because Canadian parliamentary members will get the sales terms of all three bidders on their desks and get to compare those with their existing JSF partner industrial participation arrangements.

Its much more complex than that. Ship-fighter integration requires several years of planning to accomplish, as the Queen Elisabeth Saga illustrates.

The Queen Elizabeth class saga has no bearings in Japan, whose shipyards are far more efficient than British shipyards and can turnout most warships in less than 50 months.

In case of Japan, the limiting factor is the delivery and the IOC of 40 F-35Bs, not the construction and the service entry of new build carriers.

So Japan builds a carrier with all the capabilities required to carry the F-35B including deck hardenening, positioning and elevators.


1. No thermal shielding on flight deck.
2. Not enough elevators to operate as a STOVL carrier efficiently.

yet you continue to deny that they wouldn't consider placing fighters on their deck given they have the planned capability and doctrine to do so?

Because 22DDHs are needed to transport V-22s for the USMC and Japanese Marine units.

Really the only issue here is the constitutional convention against carriers,

The issue is that 22DDH really aren't designed to operate F-35Bs. They are ASW helicopter and V-22 carriers.

Nothing to me illustrates just how tortured your logic is on this matter than how you vehemently believe that the Japanese have a "secret" program to produce nuclear arms,

Of course they do, or else why would Japan stockpile hundreds of tons of plutonium when these aren't needed for civilian nuclear power plants? The majority of Japan's parliamentary members support nuclear armament too.

yet completely deny that they might have a secret intention to purchase the F-35B when they have built carriers with all the capabilities to do so.

I do not deny that, there is in fact a Japanese news report that the Defense Ministry is considering the acquisition of 40 F-35Bs to be fielded on new future carriers(Not 22DDHs).

FYI, 22DDH Izumo will be deployed at Maizuru fleet(The anti-Korea fleet), whose operating area doesn't require fixed wing carrier capability because JASDF air support would fly from the mainland Japan. Rather, Izumo needs to transport a large number of USMC V-22s in the emergency because it is the USMC's job to steal North Korea's nukes in the opening hours of the second Korean war.

The forthcoming 24DDH(same as 22DDH) will be deployed at Sasebo fleet(The anti-China fleet covering Okinawa), so this is the only fleet that would require fixed wing jet fighter capability in the near term.

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2013, 15:04
by lookieloo
hb_pencil wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:So Japan builds a carrier with all the capabilities required to carry the F-35B including deck hardenening, positioning and elevators. You admit they have a surface doctrine that defines defense of SLOC to the South China Sea (ie requiring tac-air protection outside of their land bases)... yet you continue to deny that they wouldn't consider placing fighters on their deck given they have the planned capability and doctrine to do so?
Well, like Oz, Japan did pinky-swear "no F-35Bs," and there might be something to it. Jeff Head is already speculating that it'll actually be another class (26DDH) that finally embarks the Bee as the Izumo-class is optimized more for troop-transport.
I don't think [that's] realistic...
Fair enough. Now it's only a question of what it will take to make this class an effective sea-control carrier. The Japanese are being extremely cagey about the ship's internal configuration and have given an aircraft load on only ~14 helicopters. If that's really all it can carry, then I'd say the outlook for F-35B embarkation is bleak. However, there may be a bit of traditional East-Asian obfuscation going on, and that figure may only be half true.

I find it difficult to believe that they'd build such a large ASW platform with so little space for aircraft, so these are the possibilities: (1) That's really the full aircraft-load because so much of the ship's internal space in configured for troop-transport/support and disaster relief. (2) Fourteen helicopters is all it can handle right now, but the ship's architecture has been left open to the possibility of reconfiguration at a later date. (3) The ship will basically be ready to embark F-35Bs from the get-go, with 14 helicopters simply being the maximum-planed rotary-wing component.

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2013, 22:12
by hb_pencil
slowman. wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:This might be the DUMBEST thing you've said. Partners in the program have ALL the data. The US could not sell to Koreans without partner tacit approval because of the structure of the program. This is elementary knowledge about the program that anybody who posts on here should know. Moreover the Price of units is exactly that which is paid by the US government, which is the party with the greatest leverage in the program.

I was talking about offset terms, which is offered directly by Lockheed Martin/USAF FMS representatives and they are free to make whatever offer they like. Hence this is why Israel and Korea were offered more generous offset terms than were JSF partner nations.


Offst terms and values both are vastly in favour of the partners. In the past two decades I've watched dozens of programs in Canada barely fulfill its offset requirements. LM, Boeing, GDS and others. When I say barely, that means companies were claiming hotel fees for conferences in Canada to meet their legal offset requirements. The reason why is because the nature of programs don't allow large scale involvement of domestic industries because the production line is established and there is little ability for new companies to participate. That's not just in Canada. Industry officials in Australia and the Netherlands have also said this.

slowman. wrote:
Moreover partners derive vastly greater industrial benefits out of the program than FMS customers. Canada will obtain 33% more gross than what we would require through IRB (about $9 billion over a statutory $6~7 billion dollar legal requirement) and the quality of them will be significantly better than what normally get because they are long term industrial contracts on the production line.

JSF partner nations get industrial participation contracts and that's it.
FMS customers get much more, including technology transfer(not necessarily related to F-35, but whatever the customer needs), satellites, free engineering service(not related to F-35), on top of industrial participation contracts.

Why is this? Because the F-35 program is desperate for additional sales to get out of the death spiral, so FMS customers in open bidding are offered much more generous terms to entice the customers compared to JSF partner nations. This is why JSF partner nations get more if they switch from no-bid acquisition to open bidding that includes F-35 FMS.


Death spiral? You'll forgive me if I'm completely perplexed about what you're talking about (courtesy of the Teal Group).

Image


I think you also greatly misjudge the quality and quantity of what Canada is receiving. There aren't any numbers I can find for the F-35 in the South Korean competition but the EADS has stated that it will offer 2 billion dollars in offsets... on a 7 billion dollar contract. Canada is making 9 billion dollars on a 7 billion dollar contract. So Canada is receiving approximately 7 billion dollars more than Korea for its partnership.

What you don't understand is that most of the companies that participate in the F-35 programs already are world leaders. I'll give you an example. Lets look at CAE, the world's largest aircraft simulator provider. LM has designated CAE to become the preferred supplier of simulators for the F-35. That's an approximately $15 billion dollar market for the company it now has a technical and now a policy leg up on.

One of the things that the Lockheed Martin is offering South Korea an advanced linked simulator system for airmen. Who is the world's most advanced flight and mission simulator maker that is considered a priority provider? CAE.

How much was that satellite assistance worth again?

What you don't understand is that the reason why the partners were selected is because most of them were already major allies and they had world leading industries. What benefit does technology transfer have for Canadian firms like Magellan aerospace, CAE or Heroux Devtek, when they are already the world leaders in their firm. The reason why LM went to the partnership model was to get these companies technologies and experiences to assist in the R&D and Production of the F-35.

What you are citing is the old way of thinking on IRBs. I suggest you read this piece by Travis Taylor in the Journal of Public Procurement (Vol 3 Issue 3): The Proper Use of Offsets in International Procurement. As it will quickly become apparent, simply looking at quantities does not give a sense of what is good for a country. This is reflected to some degree by the Government of Canada's recent Canada First paper on involves some aspects (the so called value proposition and looking at long term benefits rather than the yearlong implementation.

slowman. wrote:
Recent changes to Canadian procurements (the "domestic benefit" regulations) only make the case for the F-35 even more attractive. No other program could offer what LM is able to do so in Canada.

Canadian government will have no choice but to go open bidding afterward because Canadian parliamentary members will get the sales terms of all three bidders on their desks and get to compare those with their existing JSF partner industrial participation arrangements.


Do you live in Canada? What are the terms of reference for the National Fighter Secetariat? The primary issue was not sales terms, it was lifecycle costs. Almost everybody agrees that Canada's industrial benefits are best served by the JSF program and there is no "better deal" on cost when you're a partner nation.

slowman. wrote:
Its much more complex than that. Ship-fighter integration requires several years of planning to accomplish, as the Queen Elisabeth Saga illustrates.

The Queen Elizabeth class saga has no bearings in Japan, whose shipyards are far more efficient than British shipyards and can turnout most warships in less than 50 months.

In case of Japan, the limiting factor is the delivery and the IOC of 40 F-35Bs, not the construction and the service entry of new build carriers.


Umm, no, it isn't. IF the Japanese want to, they can legitimately purchase an F-35B and have it delivered in 36 months: 12 months for approval, 12 months for long lead, 12 months for production and delivery. The manufacturing capacity exists in Plant 5 right now, they purchased many of the jigs required for FRP... actually, its probably better for Japan to do it now due to the replan lag, rather than later when everybody's deliveries start in 2019.

slowman. wrote:
So Japan builds a carrier with all the capabilities required to carry the F-35B including deck hardenening, positioning and elevators.


1. No thermal shielding on flight deck.


The deck is hardened to withstand CV-22 exhaust, much like the Wasp Class... which will also require some retrofits. Not a concern.

slowman. wrote:2. Not enough elevators to operate as a STOVL carrier efficiently.


Lets see here:
America Class: 2 elevators
Wasp Class: 2 elevators
Invincible Class: 2 elevators
Cavour Class: 2 elevators
Garibalid Class: 2 elevators
Austrias Class: 2 elevators
Naurbet Class: 2 elevators

Izumo Class: 2 elevators

Moreover the Izumo's rear lift is positioned on the side, which would facilitate landing and alleviate jet blast problems.

I don't think that's a problem at all.


slowman. wrote:
yet you continue to deny that they wouldn't consider placing fighters on their deck given they have the planned capability and doctrine to do so?

Because 22DDHs are needed to transport V-22s for the USMC and Japanese Marine units.

Really the only issue here is the constitutional convention against carriers,

The issue is that 22DDH really aren't designed to operate F-35Bs. They are ASW helicopter and V-22 carriers.


They are designed to carry F-35Bs... like I just made clear with the rear elevator and flight ops. Its also apparent if you look at the hangar design. At approximately 80 feet across it allows the passage of two F-35Bs side by side (with a wingspan of 35 Feet.) It should easily be able to store 12 aircraft internally and undertake repairs.

slowman. wrote:
Nothing to me illustrates just how tortured your logic is on this matter than how you vehemently believe that the Japanese have a "secret" program to produce nuclear arms,

Of course they do, or else why would Japan stockpile hundreds of tons of plutonium when these aren't needed for civilian nuclear power plants? The majority of Japan's parliamentary members support nuclear armament too.


A vast majority of Japan's parliamentary members do NOT support nuclear rearmament. Actually they are barely able to scrape together support to get a constitution passed that will allow UN supported out of area missions. Nuclear arms are a huge taboo for the Japanese society. Before the last election, the only groups that might plausibly call for nuclear arms is Nippon Ishin (53 seats, ) and maybe a couple of people within the LDPs' New wave, Seiwa Seisaku Kenky?kai, and and smaller factions... probably less than 80 or so lower diet seats out of a diet of 580 members. (and I'm being charitable because I suspect most of those members wouldn't support such a position anyways.) Furthermore Nippon Ishin got trounced in the last election, as did some of the more extreme elements... so the support isn't really there at all.

But its really ironic that you're all for believing that the Japanese secretly harbour nuclear arms, but vehemently deny that they may have secret plans to put F-35Bs on their carrier... its completely hypocritical and ridiculous.

slowman. wrote:
yet completely deny that they might have a secret intention to purchase the F-35B when they have built carriers with all the capabilities to do so.

I do not deny that, there is in fact a Japanese news report that the Defense Ministry is considering the acquisition of 40 F-35Bs to be fielded on new future carriers(Not 22DDHs)


Do you have a link to it in Japanese? I've not seen that.

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2013, 22:13
by hb_pencil
lookieloo wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:So Japan builds a carrier with all the capabilities required to carry the F-35B including deck hardenening, positioning and elevators. You admit they have a surface doctrine that defines defense of SLOC to the South China Sea (ie requiring tac-air protection outside of their land bases)... yet you continue to deny that they wouldn't consider placing fighters on their deck given they have the planned capability and doctrine to do so?
Well, like Oz, Japan did pinky-swear "no F-35Bs," and there might be something to it. Jeff Head is already speculating that it'll actually be another class (26DDH) that finally embarks the Bee as the Izumo-class is optimized more for troop-transport.
I don't think [that's] realistic...
Fair enough. Now it's only a question of what it will take to make this class an effective sea-control carrier. The Japanese are being extremely cagey about the ship's internal configuration and have given an aircraft load on only ~14 helicopters. If that's really all it can carry, then I'd say the outlook for F-35B embarkation is bleak. However, there may be a bit of traditional East-Asian obfuscation going on, and that figure may only be half true.

I find it difficult to believe that they'd build such a large ASW platform with so little space for aircraft, so these are the possibilities: (1) That's really the full aircraft-load because so much of the ship's internal space in configured for troop-transport/support and disaster relief. (2) Fourteen helicopters is all it can handle right now, but the ship's architecture has been left open to the possibility of reconfiguration at a later date. (3) The ship will basically be ready to embark F-35Bs from the get-go, with 14 helicopters simply being the maximum-planed rotary-wing component.


Well as I posted in the above reply to Slowman, I think the carrier's effective internal load is probably 14. I'm not entirely sure about their operational doctrine, but if they operate it like the US Navy or the UK (with a significant portion stored on the flight deck) I think they can increase that number to somewhere near twenty without too much of an issue.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 03:30
by weasel1962
There are implications of the F-35B in the anti-carrier role and my view is that conventional carriers are very high-risk due to stealth fighters with small PGMs.

A small munition like the SDB cannot sink a carrier but hits in the right location on the deck effectively reduces the carrier's sortie capability to zero as the carrier planes cannot take off. Each F-35B can carry 8 SDBs in the stealth mode from standoff and even a 1/2 sqn of F-35Bs can overwhelm a carrier fleet's AAW defences if the Bs are allowed to fire within range.

For a STOVL carrier, even if the deck is pierced, there is still an option for the F-35B to vertically take off and redeploy to another platform/runway, if available. Just my 2 yen worth.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 21:22
by lookieloo
weasel1962 wrote:There are implications of the F-35B in the anti-carrier role and my view is that conventional carriers are very high-risk due to stealth fighters with small PGMs.

A small munition like the SDB cannot sink a carrier but hits in the right location on the deck effectively reduces the carrier's sortie capability to zero as the carrier planes cannot take off. Each F-35B can carry 8 SDBs in the stealth mode from standoff and even a 1/2 sqn of F-35Bs can overwhelm a carrier fleet's AAW defences if the Bs are allowed to fire within range.

For a STOVL carrier, even if the deck is pierced, there is still an option for the F-35B to vertically take off and redeploy to another platform/runway, if available. Just my 2 yen worth.
It's not so much a question of carrier vs carrier as it is presence vs presence. As has already been pointed out, submarines and land-based aircraft would be what mattered in a shooting war, but maintenance of robust sea-control is better for preventing such a war in the first place. If that can be done effectively with helicopters only, then that's all we'll ever see operating on the Izumo. If the Chinese start buzzing the JMSDF with J-15s, then we'll probably see the Japanese upping their game, first with embarked USMC jets, then their own.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 03:41
by spazsinbad
The Day When Japan Has A True Aircraft Carrier 21 Aug 2013 Hiraku Katsuyama
(SEKAI NO KANSEN (JAPAN) 01 SEP 13) Hiraku Katsuyama is former admiral and Japan Maritime Self-Defense fleet commander.
"...Possibilities for the 22DDH Light Aircraft Carrier
It is still assuming a lot that Japan will acquire a fifth-generation V/STOL fighter plane (from here, generally understood to mean the F-35B), but I will discuss the developmental possibilities for the 22DDH helicopter carrier with this assumption.

1. Putting the F-35B Into Operation Without Remodeling [the 22DDH]
The 22DDH would be able to serve as a takeoff and landing, as well as a holding, vessel for the F-35B. As for the number of planes, in addition to pilot rescue helicopters and a V/STOL AEW aircraft, and considering the placement of the aircraft moorings and the necessary work space, it is thought a 22DDH could hold ten or so F-35Bs.

The problem is the payload for the planes on board. In the case of aircraft operations with the 22DDH, compared with a large aircraft carrier or a light aircraft carrier equipped with a ski jump ramp and landing equipment (arresting gear), the 22DDH would be fairly constrained as far as its combat radius and the number of missiles it could carry. However, since these constraints could be mitigated by advancing close to the area of operations so that the planes could be utilized, even though the number of planes would be limited, if a high-performance fifth-generation fighter plane like the F-35B is part of the equation, the 22DDH could play a substantial and active role.

2. Equipping a Ski Jump Ramp
A 22DDH could be equipped with a simple-type ski jump ramp. One way would be to attach a truss-structure ski jump ramp near the bow of the vessel. Even though this would include reinforcing the ship’s hull, attaching a ramp would require relatively little construction work, time, and cost.

However, in this case, to ensure an adequate length of the runway for takeoffs, the standby area for the next plane to takeoff will have to be limited, which would lengthen the intervals between takeoffs. Moreover, since a ski jump at the ship’s bow will create air turbulence, the direction the vessel can take during landings will be constrained.

A truss-type ski jump ramp would be made on land in advance, requiring several months for the construction and attachment and costing under 100 million yen. (The construction period and costs are estimates taking into consideration the relationship with the ship’s hull; further research needs to be done on matters, such as the adding of ballast, related to maintaining the ship’s performance. The same holds for the option described below.)

One other option is to build a full-fledged ski jump ramp within the bow. In this case, the 22DDH would be able to carry out flight operations as a light aircraft carrier....

...even if the 22DDH is commissioned into service in line with the current plan, it could still serve as a takeoff and landing and holding vessel for V/STOL fighter aircraft. In order for Japan to prepare itself to be able to deter and prevent independently attacks on the Nansei Islands, particularly the Senkaku, Miyako, and Yaeyama islands, adding the F-35B operational capability to a 22DDH-class vessel is very meaningful. Moreover, it is also possible...."

http://hrana.org/articles/2013/08/the-d ... t-carrier/

MUCH MORE at the JUMP!

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 04:24
by lookieloo
There's also this in the pipeline. Not sure if 24DDH is second in class or a class unto itself.
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/ne ... -destroyer
Something is coming. Don't know what exactly, but it would appear the long-lead items are already being purchased.

As for ADM Katsuyama's comments, very informative illustration of the design elements that go into building ships, though I'm not sure about the ramp limitations. For starters, Izumo's deck is almost as long as that on an LHA/LHD, so it might be able to operate F-35Bs effectively without any ramp at all. Secondly, adding a ramp may entail removing parts of the current deck-structure, so it might not be all that disruptive to the ship's overall balance. Then again, for all we know, the front could already be stuffed with sandbags with that in mind. I'm guessing the finished product would look something like this. vvv
Image

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 05:30
by spazsinbad
VG+Starl & BZ! Info on the 24DDH must be in Japanese so far - not much in English on the web. Yes the ramp is very useful even though USN do not choose to install any on LHA/Ds. Ski Jump users swear by them and there is a lot of info on this forum about how useful they are. We await uptodate info on how useful ski jumps are with the F-35B with the latest buzz being they will be tested at PaxRiver with that combo in 2014.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 05:50
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:VG+Starl & BZ! Info on the 24DDH must be in Japanese so far - not much in English on the web. Yes the ramp is very useful even though USN do not choose to install any on LHA/Ds. Ski Jump users swear by them and there is a lot of info on this forum about how useful they are. We await uptodate info on how useful ski jumps are with the F-35B with the latest buzz being they will be tested at PaxRiver with that combo in 2014.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dej2S4Ba41g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoNxIjtP4v4
Two things the USMC pilots liked:
-The ramp
-Bacon sandwiches

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 06:09
by spazsinbad
Beacon? HeHeh - those'll light up their days onboard...

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 06:35
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Beacon? HeHeh - those'll light up their days onboard...
:oops: fixed.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 06:36
by lookieloo
deleted

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 06:57
by spazsinbad
Same story here earlier: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ski#224217

Marines experience Brit style on ‘Lusty’ By Vago Muradian Aug 8, 2007
“...Another philosophical difference is that the British are open to ideas that to Americans seem goofy, but work, such as the 12-degree ramp at the bow of the ship that dramatically improves Harrier operations. Senior U.S. naval officers over the decades have vetoed the idea, saying they don’t like how it looks and that it takes up three helicopter landing spots. British and Marine officers say only one deck spot is lost to the “ski jump.”

To a man, Marine pilots want the ramps installed on their ships to improve operational flexibility & safety.

“We’re all in love with the ski ramp because when you come off that ramp, you’re flying,” Bradicich said. “From our ships, if you’re fully loaded, you need 750 feet, and even then you’ve got some sink once you clear the deck. Here, you can do the same thing in 450 feet and you’re climbing.”

But the ramp is intimidating at first sight, pilots said.

“I expected it to be violent, but when you take off, it’s almost a non-event,” said Maj. Grant “Postal” Pennington, a pilot with VMA-513 at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz. “Up you go, and you’re climbing. It’s a great experience.”

Equally important is the ship that’s bolted to the ramp, pilots said.

“Some of our younger guys who haven’t flown from our ships yet are in for a big surprise when they do,” Bradicich said. “This is probably the best ship you could possibly fly a Harrier from. It’s not very big, but it’s really stable, no roll, just a little pitch, not like the flat-bottom gators that roll so much. You’ve got the island moving 30 feet in each direction when you’re trying to land. That tends to get your attention.”

The combination of ski ramp, stability and dedicated crew contributed to a breakneck operational pace. The Marines proudly logged a ship record 79 takeoffs and landings in one day.

“These guys are great. We’ve qualed 28 guys in three days, most with eight landings and takeoffs, so even though we said that we were going to crawl, walk, run, our pace has been tremendous, even with different procedures,” Pennington said. “We like to approach the ship at 45 degrees and hit one of the spots, but they approach from dead astern, come to a hover abeam, slide over, then drop down to the deck. It’s different, but you get the hang of it.”

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... in_070805/

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2013, 12:16
by lookieloo
Asian Carriers By the Numbers
http://news.usni.org/2013/08/29/asian-c ... he-numbers
The Asia-Pacific region recently has seen a rise in construction of multipurpose, aviation-capable ships by major area powers. Australia, China, South Korea, Japan and Thailand all have built ships with full-length flight decks with a variety of purposes: some as helicopter carriers, some as amphibious assault ships. Only one, China’s Liaoning, was built to accommodate traditional fixed-wing aircraft carrier operations, but many others, such as Japan’s Izumo-class of helicopter destroyers could conceivably carry some form of vertical or short takeoff-and-landing aircraft.

The aircraft carrier building spree has been highlighted by the recent turn in world attention to Asia. Reports characterizing the development of these ships as an “arms race” miss an important point: although there has been a considerable ramping up of tensions in Asia among its major powers, construction of all of these vessels predates such tension. The construction of carriers could be considered a logical expansion of seapower by the nations involved, especially those whose economies rely on overseas commerce...
Breakdown at jump.

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2013, 21:22
by beepa

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 00:37
by count_to_10
Here is a question: would a ramp have improved WWII carriers for prop-aviation?
How about early jet fighters like the A-4?

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 00:50
by lookieloo
count_to_10 wrote:Here is a question: would a ramp have improved WWII carriers for prop-aviation?
How about early jet fighters like the A-4?
That is ridiculously :offtopic:

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 01:06
by count_to_10
lookieloo wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Here is a question: would a ramp have improved WWII carriers for prop-aviation?
How about early jet fighters like the A-4?
That is ridiculously :offtopic:

Not really. Check spaz's post above.

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 01:33
by maus92
count_to_10 wrote:Here is a question: would a ramp have improved WWII carriers for prop-aviation?
How about early jet fighters like the A-4?


Dangerous with conventional gear - prop strike waiting to happen...

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 02:42
by spazsinbad
'count' I'm guessing you mean the ski jump/ramp? In WWII I have read recently on another forum (I'll point to it soon) where there was discussion about these very matters for takeoff.

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... -in-WW2era

A ski jump would not be useful for early jets for lots of reasons most likely. That is quite a topic itself whilst most USN aircraft were tested during the early ski jump days it was obviously not taken up. Catapults are very efficient for getting heavy aircraft airborne quickly in the shortest possible distance in the conditions available at sea etc. Also I'll point to a previous discussion about this in that notorious very long thread wot I'll point to soonest....

You will have to elaborate for the A-4 for carrier takeoff I presume. I do not think any tests were done for the A-4 with ski jumps as they were out of USN at sea service by that time (late 1970s - early 1980s). The A4G at max launch weight of 24,500lbs could be catapulted on a 105 foot cat so there was no issues there for a small carrier.

USMC A-4s in Vietnam had a jet engine powered land catapult system with arrested landings at CHU LAI via a mirror on aloooominim matting (AM2).
________________

1983 abstract:
“The U.S. Navy is evaluating ski jump launches as an alternative to shipboard catapult launch for conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) airplanes. The Naval Air Test Center (NAVAIRTESTCEN) conducted a ski jump launch test program using a T-2C and an F-14A airplane operating from a variable exit angle ski jump to: (1) evaluate the feasibility of the concept; (2) define the operating limitations; (3) document performance gains; and (4) verify aerodynamic & structural ski jump simulations. A ground and flight test build-up program was conducted prior to actual ski jump operations. This phase consisted of ground acceleration runs, definition of aborted takeoff/committed to takeoff criteria, and high angle of attack (AOA) and dynamic single engine flight characteristics. A total of 112 ski jump takeoffs with the T-2C and 28 with the F-14A was obtained. Tests were conducted from both a 6 and 9 deg exit angle ramp. Significant performance gains were obtained. Reduction in takeoff ground roll in excess of 50% was obtained with the T-2C. Maximum capability with the F-14A was not achieved due to single engine considerations. With longitudinal trim set properly, stick free ski jump takeoff is possible. A stick free ski jump launch is an easier maneuver than a normal field takeoff. Any operational CTOL ski jump airplane should have a Head-Up Display (HUD), nosewheel steering, stability augmentation in all axes, and an accurate, repeatable flight control trim system. Investigation should continue to fully define the application of the ski jump takeoff to both Shipboard and Shorebased use.”

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=41054
___________________

One reference on this thread to 'gravity assisted land based ski jumps': http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 983#232901
____________________

Anotheries: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 983#176328
&
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 983#176294
______________________

Check out this PDF page: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 00402.html
______________

Story about testing in this PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71164640/Nava ... s-Jan-1981

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 03:52
by count_to_10
Interesting. I hadn't considered the possibility that a tail sitter's wing would be above stall AOA when it has all three wheels on the ground. Sounds like the ramp only benefits aircraft that need to rotate to take off, and have enough thrust to accelerate to flight speed while in free-fall coming off the ramp.

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 03:58
by count_to_10
You will have to elaborate for the A-4 for carrier takeoff I presume. I do not think any tests were done for the A-4 with ski jumps as they were out of USN at sea service by that time (late 1970s - early 1980s). The A4G at max launch weight of 24,500lbs could be catapulted on a 105 foot cat so there was no issues there for a small carrier.


Some of the things I've read (I think from you, actually) made me think that A-4s might have been based on carriers that didn't have catapults, doing STOBAR ops. I could be totally off base.

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 05:50
by spazsinbad
'count_to_10' said:
"Some of the things I've read (I think from you, actually) made me think that A-4s might have been based on carriers that didn't have catapults, doing STOBAR ops. I could be totally off base."

Nope. You have not heard that from me. There have been only RN CVS with Harriers, then Indian Ski Jump Carriers converted from Light Fleet Carriers with Harriers then Russian / Chinese converted with STOBARS & Thailand with SkiJumpHarriers. Your base is totally off. :D

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 06:19
by spazsinbad
This Corsair has perhaps done all the right things - assumed the power off landing attitude - perhaps not quickly enough OR LSO has not been quick enough with the CUT signal or ship moved OR a combination of all of the above. The picture in e-mail today caption says it all....

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 06:39
by spazsinbad
Informative PDF from whence de diagramme filched. Two incorrect instances of "altitude" instead of 'attitude' have been corrected in this graphic.

REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT-PHASE I; FINAL REPORT by.... 10 Oct 2002

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~durham/2002-71.pdf (3.1Mb)

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2013, 07:07
by spazsinbad
TEXT for above: Figure 1: Carrier Landing Pattern for Propeller Aircraft (circa Word War II)

"...2.2 FLAT-PADDLES APPROACH TECHNIQUE
The aircraft that have operated from carriers have often been extraordinary ones, expressing the conflicting requirements of speed and payload while achieving adequate low-speed FQ and airframe strength necessary for CV operations. World War II produced carrier-based propeller-driven aircraft including the Hellcat, Corsair, and Bearcat fighters, as well as the Helldiver and Avenger. These straight-winged aircraft approached straight-deck carriers using a “flat-paddles” approach technique controlled by the Landing Signal Officer (LSO), also referred to as “Paddles”. This method of CV recovery had been in service since the early days of carrier aviation in the 1920’s aboard USS LANGLEY (CV-1). These aircraft demonstrated an approach speed 5 to 10 kt above the aircraft stall speed.

As illustrated in figure 1, the LSO was stationed at the ship’s stern, port side of the flight deck holding a colored paddle in each hand, giving a defined set of standardized signals to the pilot. The pilot flew the downwind leg on the port side at low altitude (nominally 150 to 200 ft) and when abeam, the LSO platform started a gradually descending turn, attempting to arrive at the CUT point (where the LSO signals the pilot to rapidly reduce throttle to the idle stop) on speed, at altitude, and on lineup with the carrier centerline. This technique required continual visual contact between the pilot and LSO from about the 90 deg position in the turn. Propeller-driven aircraft of this era did not provide sufficient FOV [Field of View] at approach attitude to allow visual contact with the LSO for a straight-in approach and starboard approaches would have encountered the burble generated by the ship’s island.

The approach task was close-coupled to the LSO signaling. The LSO first corrected altitude (glide slope (GS)) by signaling whether the aircraft was HIGH or LOW. Attitude (and subsequently angle of attack (AOA)) would be addressed next by signaling FAST or SLOW. Lineup deviations would then follow by signaling LEFT or RIGHT of nominal. In addition, the LSO would signal for a HIGH DIP or LOW DIP if the aircraft was still high or low, but within tolerances for an engine chop (or CUT). If the pilot were not within LSO tolerances, the pilot would be given the WAVE OFF signal requiring the pilot to go around for another attempt. The short, critical time period from release of LSO control to aircraft touchdown was hazardous because the variables in the landing transition were not always precisely controlled by the pilot.

The "flat-paddles” approach technique was the best available technique for the straight-deck carriers due to the limited touchdown area and the absence of a touch-and-go capability for salvaging long touchdowns (aircraft forward of the landing area precluded touch-and-go capability and were protected by a barricade). Through those years, the Vpa [Approach Speed Criteria] for these relatively lightweight, straightwinged, propeller-driven aircraft varied from about 60 to 90 kt and shipboard engaging speeds were generally quite low. This technique worked well for carrier aviation until the emergence of new mission requirements dictated development of carrier-based jet fighters, sophisticated subhunters, and medium bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons. To meet these new requirements, variation in aircraft design and overall size resulted. This was primarily due to the point-design philosophy that existed at that time which focused an aircraft’s design attributes to a specific mission requirement. As a result, wider variation in aircraft Vpa with a tendency for higher speeds resulted. Increased Vpa stretched the LSO-to-pilot communication system to its limits...."

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~durham/2002-71.pdf (3.1Mb)

Another great e-mail photo just in today showing a landing attitude: (caption describes situation)
"Carrier Qualification Training Unit CQTU-4 F8F-1 Bearcat trapping on USS Cabot CVL-28 July 14, 1952"

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 21:26
by spazsinbad
This article here to illustrate the weight issues with STOBAR....

Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter 28 Sep 2013 WENDELL MINNICK
"TAIPEI — In an unusual departure for mainland Chinese-language media, the Beijing-based Sina Military Network (SMN) criticized the capabilities of the carrier-borne J-15 Flying Shark as nothing more than a “flopping fish.”

On Sept. 22, the state-controlled China Daily Times reported the new aircraft carrier Liaoning had just finished a three-month voyage and conducted over 100 sorties of “various aircraft,” of which the J-15 “took off and landed on the carrier with maximum load and various weapons.” This report was also carried on the official Liberation Army Daily.

Contradicting any report by official military or government media is unusual in China given state control of the media.

What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons, “effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.”

The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a weapons “load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carrier’s ski jump ramp.” This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles.

To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons while fully fueled. “This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and two PL-8 missiles,” thus the “range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN [People’s Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.”

Losing the ability to carry the PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles will make the J-15 an “unlikely match” against other foreign carrier-based fighters.

“Even the Vietnam People’s Air Force can outmatch the PL-8 short-range missile. Without space for an electronic countermeasure pod, a huge number of J-15s must be mobilized for even simple missions, a waste for the PLA Navy in using the precious space aboard its sole aircraft carrier in service.”

Built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, the J-15 is a copy of the Russian-made Su-33. China acquired an Su-33 prototype from the Ukraine in 2001. Avionics are most likely the same as the J-11B (Su-27). In 2006, Russia accused China of reverse engineering the Su-27 and canceled a production license to build 200 Su-27s after only 95 aircraft had been built.

Vasily Kashin, a China military specialist at the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, suggests the J-15 might be a better aircraft than the Su-33. “I think that there might be some improvements because electronic equipment now weighs less than in the 1990s,” he said. It could also be lighter due to new composites that China is using on the J-11B that were not available on the original Su-33.

Despite improvements, Kashin wonders why the Chinese bothered with the Su-33 given the fact that Russia gave up on it. Weight problems and other issues forced the Russians to develop the MiG-29K, which has better power-to-weight ratio and can carry more weapons. “Of course, when the Chinese get their future carriers equipped with catapults, that limitation will not apply and they will be able to fully realize Su-33/J-15 potential — huge range and good payload,” Kashin said.

The Liaoning is the problem. The carrier is small — 53,000 tons — and uses a ski jump. From Russia’s experience, “taking off from the carrier with takeoff weight exceeding some 26 tons is very difficult,” Kashin said.

Roger Cliff, a China defense specialist for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said this is “one of the reasons why sky-jump carriers can’t be considered to be equivalent to full-size carriers with catapults.”

A number of unanswered questions are raised by the SMN report, Kashin said, including the amount of fuel on board, carrier speed, wind speed and direction.

Cliff also raises issues with SMN’s conclusions. “It doesn’t make sense to me that the J-15 can take off with YJ-83s but not PL-12s, since the YJ-83 weighs about 1,800 pounds and the PL-12 weighs about 400 pounds.”

A possible answer is that it was unable to take off with both. “The article says that it can only carry ‘two tons’ of missiles and munitions when fully fueled, which is 4,400 pounds, and two YJ-83s plus two PL-8s would weigh over 4,000 pounds, leaving no margin for any PL-12s. But I don’t see why it couldn’t take off with PL-12s if it wasn’t carrying YJ-83s.” Cliff concludes that the J-15 should be capable of carrying PL-12s when it is flying purely air-to-air missions and that “it probably just can’t carry PL-12s when it is flying a strike mission.”

Kashin said the J-15, unlike the Su-33, should have a “potent” internal countermeasures suite, thus allowing for more space for weapons. The SMN report suggests it has an external electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod.

Weight issues should also not be too much of a problem for the J-15, he said, since the Su-33 did fly from the same type of carrier carrying “6-8 air-to-air missiles and Sorbtsia ECM pods carrying something like 6 to 6.5 tons of fuel.”

China’s next carriers will reportedly use electromagnetic catapults, Kashin said, but “limitations are significant when it comes to air-to-surface weapons, which limit the J-15’s use as a multirole fighter."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... 15-Fighter

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2013, 06:56
by spazsinbad
WOT? 'NO' CHANGES required to CAVOUR for F-35B ops? That is an OUTrage..... :doh: :drool: :P :D :shock: :roll: :twisted:

The Italian Approach to the F-35: A Discussion with Rear Admiral Covella 08 Nov 2013 Robbin Laird
"...The Cavour will see some changes as well; there are no structural changes necessary but some adaptations such as dedicated secure networks and laying down a new type of surface treatment for the ship flight deck....

...The Cavour will be eventually be stocked with the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, replacing the aging Harriers. It has room for ten F-35Bs in the hanger and six on the deck....

...The head of the Italian Air Force had underscored during his interview that the 60/40 split between the As and Bs was being done because the Air Force saw the need for expeditionary flexibility. “We want to go to the mission, not the airfield.”

What is your view of how the Italian Navy and Air Force will evolve in their use of the B, especially because they will be based at the same facility?

Commonality is a great way to go forward in the future.

There will be two squadrons of Bs, one for the Navy and one for the Air Force.

The missions are different.

The Air Force is focused on expeditionary use of the aircraft and will focus on its ability to operate off of short airfields in operations to be closer to the action, so to speak.

The Navy is focused on the way we use carriers.

We do not use the carrier as the US does; we do not deploy for 6 months at a time.

We need to go out and be ready to go without a significant build up time. We look at the F-35B as providing a more capable ramp up capability for the Cavour.

The two competencies are different.

The Navy is focused on the ability to operate rapidly during the carrier’s operation in fleet activities as the main “ship weapon system”; the Air Force is focused on a specialized expeditionary operational focus.

USMC F-35B pilots, some of whom are Harrier pilots, have emphasized that an impact of the B versus the Harrier is a reduction of time necessary to recertify pilots during an operational period.

The point made is that after performing a mission, the Harrier pilots would then – because of the complexity of flying the aircraft – need time to do some flying to recertify their flying skills.

It has been emphasized that the B will dramatically reduce the need to do so, and enhance provide for more mission time with regard to the planes aboard the small deck carrier.

The Admiral agreed to this point and elaborated.

I am a Harrier pilot.

Your point is well taken.

We expect to get more mission time out of the F-35B than we have been able to get out of the Harrier.

If you cut out the recertification time necessary for the Harrier pilots, then the B will allow you more mission time.

When I was on the WASP, the pilots made it clear that the B was much easier to fly. And when the aircraft lands it is very stable.

Finally, I asked the Admiral what the advantage of having a coalition aircraft like the F-35 available to a future coalition of the willing?

All the aircraft can do the same range of missions.

Currently, you use your assets on a task-oriented basis; with the F-35 you can consider the coalition aircraft as a combined team.

And with the common flow of parts and procedures to the fleet of coalition aircraft allows for greater operational possibilities as well.

And the common symbology of the cockpit is significant as well in terms of sharing operational information for common operations."

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-italian-appr ... l-covella/

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... 35-jsf.jpg

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2013, 18:43
by neptune
...The Cavour will see some changes as well; there are no structural changes necessary but some adaptations such as dedicated secure networks (JPALS, etc.) and laying down a new type of surface treatment for the ship flight deck (thermite...,, I mean Thermion :D) ....

...The Cavour will be eventually be stocked with the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, replacing the aging Harriers. It has room for ten F-35Bs in the hanger and six on the deck...

....Currently, you use your assets on a task-oriented basis; with the F-35 you can consider the coalition aircraft as a combined team. And with the common flow of parts and procedures to the fleet of coalition aircraft allows for greater operational possibilities as well. And the common symbology of the cockpit is significant as well in terms of sharing operational information for common operations."..

The Cavour with the 30 ton elevators can also carry the in-flight refueling MV-22B (24 tons).

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2013, 19:10
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2014, 04:05
by popcorn
Disclaimer: F-35B is not mentioned in the article. :)

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Cont ... lus-340352

Turkey’s new carrier alters eastern Mediterranean energy and security calculus

In late December 2013, Turkey took a major step in altering the naval balance in the eastern Mediterranean by contracting the construction of a multi-purpose amphibious assault ship that can function as an aircraft carrier, potentially providing Turkey an unprecedented measure of sea control in the region... Background In March 2012, then-commander of the Turkish navy Admiral Murat Bilgel outlined Turkey’s strategic objective “to operate not only in the littorals but also on the high seas,” with “high seas” referring to the eastern Mediterranean. Bilgel identified the Turkish navy’s intermediate goals for the coming decade as “enhancing sea denial, forward presence, and limited power projection capacity.”... The new Turkish LHD, to be built by the Turkish shipyard SEDEF and Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, will be a variant of Navantia’s Juan Carlos I class L-61 ship used by the Spanish Navy. After Spain, Turkey will be only the second country to possess a Juan Carlos I class vessel.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2014, 04:51
by spazsinbad
I have seen reports suggesting that the LHD will be a short non ski jump version of the Spanish LHD which comes in a Goldilocks sized family of LHDs but have seen nothing to say one way or another since then. Probably why no mention of F-35Bs - at this stage anyway. It is difficult to monitor foreign language websites - given the amount of stuff on the internet these days. Anyway so the variant is likely a 'smaller variant' of the LHD. There is a PDF about the famblys - I'll post it here... Go here for wot I know....

Gov't replaces Koç with Spanish design in ship bid 29 Dec 2013 /İSTANBUL, TODAY'S ZAMAN
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-335235- ... p-bid.html
at:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... -Perchance (see web p.2)
&
http://turkishnavy.net/2013/12/31/techn ... rkish-lpd/

13Mb PDF: http://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/u ... _en_v2.pdf
{Page 30-32 has the Athlas 2000 etc. info in the above PDF.}

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2014, 05:04
by lookieloo
Well, if Turkey really is planning to utilize the ship as an "aircraft carrier," there's only the one option for its fixed-wing component. Buuuuuuut I suppose they could just embark some attack birds and call it good (not really a carrier though).

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2014, 05:08
by spazsinbad
This is what a Turkish/English website says:

Technical Specifications Of Turkish LPD 31 Dec 2013
"...The air component will consist of 4 at least 15 ton helicopters on the flight deck and 4 at least 15 ton helicopters or 3 UAV’s in the hangar."

http://turkishnavy.net/2013/12/31/techn ... rkish-lpd/

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2014, 01:35
by exheadshedguy
spazsinbad wrote:I have seen reports suggesting that the LHD will be a short non ski jump version of the Spanish LHD which comes in a Goldilocks sized family of LHDs but have seen nothing to say one way or another since then.

Actually, Navantia has confirmed that it will have a ski-jump, as per the request of the Ankara government.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2014, 03:08
by spazsinbad
A link to that info would be nice thanks. As you can see there was confusion at beginning. Please have the link in plain English thanks.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2014, 04:30
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:Disclaimer: F-35B is not mentioned in the article. :)

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Cont ... lus-340352

Turkey’s new carrier alters eastern Mediterranean energy and security calculus

In late December 2013, Turkey took a major step in altering the naval balance in the eastern Mediterranean by contracting the construction of a multi-purpose amphibious assault ship that can function as an aircraft carrier, potentially providing Turkey an unprecedented measure of sea control in the region... Background In March 2012, then-commander of the Turkish navy Admiral Murat Bilgel outlined Turkey’s strategic objective “to operate not only in the littorals but also on the high seas,” with “high seas” referring to the eastern Mediterranean. Bilgel identified the Turkish navy’s intermediate goals for the coming decade as “enhancing sea denial, forward presence, and limited power projection capacity.”... The new Turkish LHD, to be built by the Turkish shipyard SEDEF and Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, will be a variant of Navantia’s Juan Carlos I class L-61 ship used by the Spanish Navy. After Spain, Turkey will be only the second country to possess a Juan Carlos I class vessel.



In fact the article says in can operate 12 Aircraft in the Hanger and 6 more on the Flight Deck and will include a Ski Jump. Hardly, seem likely the Turkish BPE would be smaller than the Spanish one. If it can store and operate that many aircraft..

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2014, 03:32
by neptune
[quote="Corsair1963...... The new Turkish LHD, to be built by the Turkish shipyard SEDEF and Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, will be a variant of Navantia’s Juan Carlos I class L-61 ship used by the Spanish Navy. After Spain, Turkey will be only the second country to possess a Juan Carlos I class vessel...the article says in can operate 12 Aircraft in the Hanger and 6 more on the Flight Deck and will include a Ski Jump. Hardly, seem likely the Turkish BPE would be smaller than the Spanish one. If it can store and operate that many aircraft..[/quote]

The hull of the RAN’s second Landing Helicopter Dock..has arrived in Melbourne from Navantia’s Ferrol shipyard in Spain. Like the .NUSHIP Canberra before it, the hull . which will be named HMAS Adelaide in RAN service,.. will be floated off the Blue Marlin and moved into BAE’s Williamstown shipyard next week...

http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... melbourne/

In the meantime, NUSHIP Canberra is expected to commence sea trials next month and will be accepted by the RAN towards the end of the year. The vessel has effectively been completed and has successfully conducted a number of vehicle load trials to validate the vessel’s vast storage and operational spaces

enjoy :)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2014, 04:45
by Corsair1963
Besides Spain, Australia, and Turkey. I wonder what other navies mite purchase the BPE???

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 09:15
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:Besides Spain, Australia, and Turkey. I wonder what other navies mite purchase the BPE???
The Indians are talking about it on their boards. Gonna be hard for them to look at the ramp with all that F-35 hate going on though.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 11:04
by weasel1962
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Besides Spain, Australia, and Turkey. I wonder what other navies mite purchase the BPE???
The Indians are talking about it on their boards. Gonna be hard for them to look at the ramp with all that F-35 hate going on though.


Can't see India purchasing this when they already have 2 carriers being built locally, an indigeneous production requirement and no budget. Even if they do have more than an interest, it will still take them 10 years to decide on it (and possibly another 10 to build) a la scorpene. Korea and Japan are also out as they have local LHD production programs. Maybe Brazil...

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 12:04
by lookieloo
weasel1962 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Besides Spain, Australia, and Turkey. I wonder what other navies mite purchase the BPE???
The Indians are talking about it on their boards. Gonna be hard for them to look at the ramp with all that F-35 hate going on though.
Can't see India purchasing this when they already have 2 carriers being built locally, an indigeneous production requirement and no budget. Even if they do have more than an interest, it will still take them 10 years to decide on it (and possibly another 10 to build) a la scorpene. Korea and Japan are also out as they have local LHD production programs. Maybe Brazil...
Well, they aren't so much out for another carrier as they are an LHD/LPD ship. Like I said though, that ramp on the BPE kinda mocks anyone buying it sans F-35B.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 15:41
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:Besides Spain, Australia, and Turkey. I wonder what other navies mite purchase the BPE???


"BPE"?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 17:53
by neptune
lookieloo wrote:[...quote]Well, they aren't so much out for another carrier as they are an LHD/LPD ship. Like I said though, that ramp on the BPE kinda mocks anyone buying it sans F-35B.


Without getting too far off beam, we all can wait until the Brits complete their testing of the "Bee" (with and without full ordinance loads) ((When??)) and the infernal "ski slope" at Pax River. :) That said, having the QEs with their ski slopes should guarantee that all, that have ski slopes (of some type) can operate the "Bee" in some loaded configuration vs. VTO.

If you are a maritime nation then, having a LHD with a ski slope can be an option for "at sea" operating the "Bee" in addition to it's "land forward basing" strategies (ala Bumble Bee flitting about to the nearest ordinance/ fuel trucks). :2c:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 19:25
by gtx
sferrin wrote:
"BPE"?


BPE= Buque de Proyección Estratégica (Strategic Projection Vessel) - the initial name for the Juan Carlos I class of LHD which includes the Australian Canberra Class.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 19:49
by spazsinbad
'neptune' I like the 'BEE' flitting analogy however the 'ski slope' does not fly because that is DOWN. Ski Jump or ramp (it is called a ski jump by Brits who should know) is the UP version - which it is. :devil: :twisted: :roll: :D 8) Probably 'ski jump ramp' works to best describe it with 'ski jump' being vernacular etc.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 20:13
by spazsinbad
Probably this news item has been posted before [ viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=178251&hilit=Prins#p178251 ] - anyway it is old and probably not relevant now but interesting nevertheless IMHO.

Indian Navy Fighter RFI: Lockheed To Respond With Both F-35B & C 28 June 2010 Shiv Aroor
"Lockheed-Martin plans to respond to the Indian Navy's recent RFI for a new generation carrier-based figher with two parallel dockets on the STOVL F-35B and the carrier variant F-35C. While it was initially thought that the F-35B would be the variant offered (since it appeared a logical replacement for India's Sea Harrier jump jets), Lockeed-Martin Biz Development (India) VP Orville Prins told me and a few other journalists today that Lockheed-Martin is conducting simulation and analysis studies to support the team's supposition that the F-35C -- built for a steam catapult launch off aircraft carriers -- is also capable of short take-offs from ski-jumps. The simulation and analysis will take into account various stress and strain parameters. The RFI to Lockheed-Martin simply requested information on the F-35 as a potential future carrier-based asset for the Indian Navy, and did not specify a variant. While LM has provided the Navy with programme-level briefings it will shortly begin a round of technical briefings on both the F-35 variants it plans to offer....."

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/06/ ... ed-to.html

Another old item here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15030&p=189651&hilit=Prins#p189651

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 20:36
by spazsinbad
And... another repeated oldie but goldie for the ski jumpers in our audience...

JSF programme to proceed with UK-specific land-based carrier trials 09 Jul 2012 Gareth Jennings
“The Program Office for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is to shortly commence UK-specific trials for carrier operations of the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) variant F-35B, it was announced at the Farnborough Airshow 2012.

Speaking on 10 July, BAE Systems lead STOVL test pilot Peter 'Wizzer' Wilson said that 'ski-jump' launch trials will begin at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland, in the near future...

..."A 'ski jump' is in place at Pax River that is based on the one [formerly fitted to HMS] Illustrious," he said, adding: "If we can get a few launches in over the next 12 months or so to help de-risk the programme, that would be something that [the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD)] would be interested in."

Wilson said the advantage of the 'ski jump' launch method is in the extra time it gives the pilot on take-off. "The real benefit is one of timing. Once airborne you are flying upwards rather than horizontal, and this gives you extra time to think if something should go wrong," he explained.

In addition, Wilson noted that the 'ski jump' saves approximately 100 to 150 ft of deck run over the standard 'flat top' carrier deck.

"Everything we have seen in modelling is that [the 'ski jump'] is the best way to get this aircraft airborne," he said.

Wilson noted that the lift-fan door behind the cockpit does not affect the aircraft's handling when open for the landing and take-off phases of flight.

"There are no issues in terms of drag," he said. "We can open [the door] up to speeds of 250 kt and you don't feel a thing in the cockpit."....”

http://www.ihs.com/events/exhibitions/f ... oceed.aspx

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 20:52
by spazsinbad
For the Ski Jumpin' Engineers this dense with formulae - but thankfully short paper - may be of interest?

Multi-body dynamic system simulation of carrier-based aircraft ski-jump takeoff 2011
Wang Yangang, Wang Weijun, Qu Xiangju
"Abstract The flight safety is threatened by the special flight conditions and the low speed of carrier-based aircraft ski-jump takeoff. The aircraft carrier motion, aircraft dynamics, landing gears and wind field of sea state are comprehensively considered to dispose this multidiscipline intersection problem. According to the particular naval operating environment of the carrier-based aircraft ski-jump takeoff, the integrated dynamic simulation models of multi-body system are developed, which involves the movement entities of the carrier, the aircraft and the landing gears, and involves takeoff instruction, control system and the deck wind disturbance. Based on Matlab/Simulink environment,
the multi-body system simulation is realized. The validity of the model and the rationality of the result are verified by an example simulation of carrier-based aircraft ski-jump takeoff. The simulation model and the software are suitable for the study of the multidiscipline intersection problems which are involved in the performance, flight quality and safety of carrier-based aircraft takeoff, the effects of landing gear loads, parameters of carrier deck, etc....

...The effects of a moving carrier-based aircraft on an aircraft carrier motion are negligible as the mass of the aircraft is nearly three orders of magnitude less than the aircraft carrier. Therefore the carrier motion is independent of the carrier-based aircraft and regarded as an input of the multi-body dynamic system (MBDS)....

...3.5. Flight instruction and control module
The LSO is responsible for the safety of the carrier-based aircraft takeoff. Before the deck run, the aircraft is attached to the flight deck by the holdback fitting to enable the engine to run up to full power. After the pilot signals the LSO that it is ready, the commander will make a right judgment by considering carrier motion, aircraft characteristics and flight mission, etc. If the takeoff decision is made, the LSO will give signals immediately to the launch operator to release the wheel gear, and the carrier-based aircraft will then start rolling and complete the takeoff process. Otherwise a right time shall be waited for. The time decision-making system for carrier-based aircraft launching is shown as Fig. 3....

...7. Conclusions
The simulation modeling of carrier-based aircraft ski-jump takeoff is complicated. This paper builds the relatively complete system model of carrier-based aircraft ski-jump takeoff to resolve the problems of the coupling among multi-motion bodies and flight environment, as well as the problems of the cooperative instructions control. This system model takes into account three main effects: the coupling of carrier, aircraft body and the landing gears; the influences on the carrier motion by sea state and on the flight by the induced wind field; the influences on the aircraft flight by the cooperative instructions control among deck commanders and pilot. Two simulation examples show that the system model can describe the dynamic characteristics of all the movement bodies reasonably. It has practical significance for the multidisciplinary intersect problem in the design of carrier deck, design of landing gears and aircraft body. This system model can be used to analyze the influencing factors of flight safety comprehensively, such as flight environment, human decision-making control, etc., which is supposed to play an important role in flight training."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 5-main.pdf (1.1Mb)

Also here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 6112000155

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2014, 06:31
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Besides Spain, Australia, and Turkey. I wonder what other navies mite purchase the BPE???
The Indians are talking about it on their boards. Gonna be hard for them to look at the ramp with all that F-35 hate going on though.


India just doesn't seem to have a Coherent Defense Procurement Strategy! :?


That said as long as we are talking about the BPE Class LHD's. This would be idea for India. As the ships are extremely versatile and state of the art. In addition they could operate F-35B's. The latter could also operate from the Vikramaditya and forthcoming Vikrant Class Carriers. As a matter of fact even future Indian Carriers equipped with Catapults and Arresting Gear. Could operate the Carrier Variant. (F-35C) As both types share much in common.......

Of course that is dreaming because I personally don't expect India to choose a logical path in it's defense planning. :bang:

Australia’s Canberra Class LHDs

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2014, 20:41
by neptune
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/au ... nuereading

June 4/14: .LHD01 Canberra’s 1st shakedown cruise, crewed by Teekay Shipping Corporation. The next round of sea trials for the ship will be in July and she is due to be handed to the navy later this year.

Re: Australia’s Canberra Class LHDs

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2014, 08:24
by lookieloo
neptune wrote:https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-canberra-class-lhds-03384/?utm_medium=textlink&utm_term=continuereading

June 4/14: .LHD01 Canberra’s 1st shakedown cruise, crewed by Teekay Shipping Corporation. The next round of sea trials for the ship will be in July and she is due to be handed to the navy later this year.
Oh my... very nice to see. Will be even more interesting to watch how Oz will perceive the things: as amphibs, or as carriers? My guess will be "carrier" as that's easier to remember/recognize/describe for your average journalist. Whether or not that leads to a groundswell of F-35B support is anyone's guess.


Question is: assuming an F-35B purchase is decided upon, will those orders be added on top of what's already planned, or will some of the F-35As simply be swapped-out?

Re: Australia’s Canberra Class LHDs

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2014, 20:25
by gtx
lookieloo wrote:Question is: assuming an F-35B purchase is decided upon, will those orders be added on top of what's already planned, or will some of the F-35As simply be swapped-out?


The understanding at present is that they will be added on top of those currently ordered, perhaps in lieu of the final tranche though (I hope not though). This would result in something such as the following options:

Minimalist option: 72 F-35A + ~18 F-35B
Middle option: 72 F-35A + ~10 F-35A (final tranche) + ~18 F-35B
My preferred option: 100 F-35A + ~18+ F-35B

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2014, 20:53
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: "Tell him he's dreamin'". :mrgreen: And I will say this a zillion times until I'm pushin' up barnacles. The LHDs will NEVER become aircraft carriers. They are LHDs - endof. They may be LHDs with a few F-35Bs - that is the notion.

Why will they have only a few F-35Bs onboard? Because these magic aircraft will be for fleet defence - especially of the high value (not well self defended otherwise) LHD with the high value cargo. As I'll repeat again this is a tried and true concept from the HMAS Melbourne specialist ASW carrier days (now think specialist LHD for Oz) with some A4Gs onboard for 'poormanfleetdefense' (think a few F-35Bs on the LHDs). Worked a treat. And everyone gets on with life. :mrgreen: 2-3-relax

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2014, 21:48
by gtx
Oh, I know I am dreaming. :D

My F-35B numbers were only based upon having a max of 6 F-35Bs on a LHD at any one time. I was working on the ratio of 6 on one LHD + 6 for another + 6 in maintenance rotation. The F-35Bs would only ever be tasked with providing coverage for a task group in a contested AO. More realistically though, I see this as the role for the ARH Tigers operating from the LHDs.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2014, 22:22
by spazsinbad
How about ocean transit and around archipelagos / islands where the goodies on the F-35Bs just for intel are going to be awesome - apart from all the other stuff [all this is mentioned on the propa thread]. Get rid of the bleedin' useless Tigers - where have they been? Just kidding but they would be the first to be offloaded. They can arrive in theatre on Gilligans Island in a cargo plane - right? Or be in the second LHD in the convoy. I know some crabtypes have difficulties with the concept of any RAAF Fleet Defence - however the RAN has no trouble and has practised it before....

READ up on VF-805 'Over Sea and SAND' back in the 1970s - youse know where - look at the sig below:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpPkjtUCIAAhd2r.jpg

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2014, 22:59
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote::mrgreen: "Tell him he's dreamin'". :mrgreen: And I will say this a zillion times until I'm pushin' up barnacles. The LHDs will NEVER become aircraft carriers. They are LHDs - endof. They may be LHDs with a few F-35Bs - that is the notion.

Why will they have only a few F-35Bs onboard? Because these magic aircraft will be for fleet defence - especially of the high value (not well self defended otherwise) LHD with the high value cargo. As I'll repeat again this is a tried and true concept from the HMAS Melbourne specialist ASW carrier days (now think specialist LHD for Oz) with some A4Gs onboard for 'poormanfleetdefense' (think a few F-35Bs on the LHDs). Worked a treat. And everyone gets on with life. :mrgreen: 2-3-relax
Agreed, no amount of calling it a "carrier" will make it carrier; but expect it to be called one all the same. As for the idea of embarking Bees merely to shoo-away the odd bear or badger sniffing around, I'm not sure about the cost/benefit on that idea. Rather than a "specialist LHD" with some F-35Bs on board, I prefer to think of is as a specialist LHD that could also come in handy as a specialist Sea-Control-Ship.


Then again, all this is simply part of the F-35B's fun. There are just so-many possibilities with this plane. You can build an entire supercarrier around it like the British (high-end), or you could experiment/speculate with converted merchantmen (low-end)... and everything in-between. Sea-control, land-attack, and fleet-defense are all on the table; and of course, there are all manner of interesting designs for the ships themselves.

I must also give credit where credit is due. All this thanks largely to China's behavior over the past five years or so, which has made it entirely plausible that the F-35B will have three or more new customers putting it on ships within the next decade.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2014, 23:21
by spazsinbad
One may scoff at an old concept of fleet defence however the idea Shirley applies to the situation today with the amazing intel gathering capabilities amongst all the other junk in an F-35B. I wonder how a TIGER helo can match that - but youse knew that. Right?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 00:30
by popcorn
I see the Aussies taking an interest in the CONOPs being explored by the Marines for,conducting long-range raids as discussed elsewhere on these boards. The ability to,extend the reach of the amphibious force hundreds of miles inland will address any number of scenarios. However, it would require a vessel that is configured to sustain more robust aviation operations, not to mention the F-35Bs and Ospreys needed to make it work.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 01:13
by spazsinbad
'popcorn' that may be so. However as far as I'm concerned the only way any Oz F-35Bs are going to be on our Oz LHDs is for a form of temporary Fleet Defence for situations where this is required temporarily. Otherwise the Oz F-35Bs have to find their role in RAAF conops. I am certain this is possible but will require the out of the box thinking as tongue lashed recently by CAF AM Brown at a gathering. I'll say again the F-35Bs are only onboard an LHD temporarily and then they are off - being supported ashore from an Airfield with RAAF support assets including F-35As. From there or FOBs from there the Bees can do their thang. No worries Chief.

IF Oz wants to be more robust like the USMC/USN then they need at least a STOVL carrier to match that requirement. People seem to forget that the Spanish will ONLY use their SINGLE LHD as a TEMPORARY 'substitute aircraft carrier' when their proper aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias was unavailable - it is permanently unavailable now. "The ship became a victim of defence cuts, being officially decommissioned on 6 February 2013." What the SpanYards do now I guess we will find out in regard to the now delayed purchase of their F-35Bs by upgrading their existing Harriers. Everything is in more flux do to their financial crisis.

Perhaps what comes out of all this reappraisal is something not imagined yet. Perhaps a third LHD made suitable for permanent use of F-35Bs with the rest an after thought with the first two LHDs 'as they were'. Who knows. Be patient. Small steps - out of the box thinking. Think DEFEND the LHD at sea ONLY.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 04:02
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:...People seem to forget that the Spanish will ONLY use their SINGLE LHD as a TEMPORARY 'substitute aircraft carrier' when their proper aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias was unavailable - it is permanently unavailable now..
Much as I hate to be "that guy," do you have a source for this (I'm sure I just missed it somewhere)? Given the age difference between those two ships, it always seemed rather obvious to me that PdA was eventually going to be replaced by the newer vessel. Dunno... maybe Spain was originally planning to build another proper carrier.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 04:31
by spazsinbad
Perhaps your googling missed it. In Cricket Terms a Googlie is often an unplayable ball bowled by surprise at the batsman. You can google that otherwise 'Principe De Asturias' is one term....

Well well well - here is a turnip I can almost NOT believe but look at the website....

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/why-do ... c03ec9b21a

So happy now? : http://murciatoday.com/the-principe-de- ... 925-a.html

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 04:32
by blindpilot
lookieloo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:...People seem to forget that the Spanish will ONLY use their SINGLE LHD as a TEMPORARY 'substitute aircraft carrier' when their proper aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias was unavailable - it is permanently unavailable now..
Much as I hate to be "that guy," do you have a source for this (I'm sure I just missed it somewhere)? Given the age difference between those two ships, it always seemed rather obvious to me that PdA was eventually going to be replaced by the newer vessel. Dunno... maybe Spain was originally planning to build another proper carrier.


http://murciatoday.com/the-principe-de- ... 925-a.html

BP

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 04:36
by spazsinbad
Heheh 'BP' I have been struggling to copy paste text from that website - No Por Favore - what a crock - I refuse to type!

Had to make a PDF from the page and then copy paste this little lot: 06 Feb 2013
"The former flagship vessel of the Spanish navy, the aircraft carrier, ‘Príncipe de Asturias’ will today officially leave the service of the Spanish Navy in an official act held at the Naval Base in Rota."

UhOh - this thread - 27 May 2013 (was that last year?): viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20426&p=252826&hilit=Asturias#p252826
"Several countries interested in buying ex-Spanish Navy Aircraft Carrier Principe de Asturias 26 May 2013" page 15

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 06:29
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps your googling missed it. In Cricket Terms a Googlie is often an unplayable ball bowled by surprise at the batsman. You can google that otherwise 'Principe De Asturias' is one term....

Well well well - here is a turnip I can almost NOT believe but look at the website....

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/why-do ... c03ec9b21a

So happy now? : http://murciatoday.com/the-principe-de- ... 925-a.html

There's nothing in either of those to indicate what you stated. The PdA was old and unable to accommodate F-35Bs in any case. That it was forced to retire a bit early due to economic problems doesn't mean that the Juan Carlos is pinch-hitting; it's doing what it was always meant to do... replace the ship before it.

So why replace a dedicated carrier with an amphib? In a word: "versitility." For the purposes of many countries, an amphib is eminently more useful than a dedicated CV. While the CV is ton-for-ton much better at TACAIR ops, your typical amphib works better at all the other things for which one usually sends in the military, relief-work being a lot more common nowadays than blockades and/or naval battles.

This does not mean that there is no place for proper light-carriers.

One the problems with embarking Bees on Oz's LHDs is that it might convey an unwarranted sense of self-satisfaction. "Oh look, we have "carriers" now; guess there no longer need to fret about our maritime security." As has probably become apparent already, I'm a big fan of the Cavour's design wherein STOVL-CVLs are concerned. Yes, steel is cheap and the relationship between tonnage and aircraft capacity is nonlinear; but if you want respectable capability in a manageable package for the relatively-manageable cost of around $2 billion, I think the Italians did good work.

All a non-issue though. Oz has paid its money for two LHDs already, so I doubt anyone will be interested in our detailed explanations as to why they aren't carriers or why true carriers should be added to the fleet.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 06:54
by lookieloo
On a lighter note... looks like the novice carrier drivers couldn't figure out how to drive stick. :lmao:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/a-bra ... 6943454150
Ya think they might have stopped sooner to find out what was wrong. :doh:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 07:02
by spazsinbad
It seems someone has trouble with reading comprehension or short term memory - this is what I said "...[PdeA] is permanently unavailable now". Now look at what the SpanGuvmnt has said on't. Their website is mostly in Spanish (which I do not understand and it is VERY SLOW) so I'll rely on this quote from the latest NAVANTIA (builder of the LHD) which summarises in some parts from my memory, material which is on the Spanish Navy Website (which used to be in English in part and I have a PDF in English made from it somewhere which I have to find):

"AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection
airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.)."
download/file.php?id=18976

You make the point that the PdeA was not made for F-35Bs - quelle surprise - whilst the JCI will not be operating them for some time apparently. So that is my point. You probably do not want to read much but over on the very long thread - probably start from the end to work backwards skipping irrelevancies there is a heck of a lot of material about these issues.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&start=870

This thought bubble of yours is utter TOSH: "...One the problems with embarking Bees on Oz's LHDs is that it might convey an unwarranted sense of self-satisfaction. "Oh look, we have "carriers" now; guess there no longer need to fret about our maritime security."..." Just bollocks. What a load of old rubbish. Get a grip.

You are just thowing words into the wind. Yes the two Oz LHDs were bought with a specific purpose and slightly modified internally to suit the two specific mission at least mentioned on the very long thread (see the link above) or on this thread also. NOW that the local security environment up north has changed somewhat and the first LHD is due to be handed over to the RAN by the end of the year then there is reason to start a rethink about it all. And this is obviously happening. No one is going to fret. What a bleedin' liberty you take. You have no clue.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 07:04
by spazsinbad
Well I would like to know what you mean by 'novice carrier drivers'. If you read the news report the first sentence says this:

"A CIVILIAN contract crew made two serious errors during sea trials for the navy’s biggest ever ship". So go f yourself.
________________________

This is the Spanish link to the LHD info - I'll googtrans now: http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/p ... los-i-l-61

Gargoyle: http://translate.google.com/translate?d ... MZM0IGM1Pw

This is what is repeated in the much better English of the Navantia PDF brochure indicated but here it is from gargoyletranslate:
"WHAT DO WE DO? - LHD Juan Carlos I (L-61)

The vessel is designed with four mission profiles:
• As amphibious ship, capable of carrying a force of Marines ready to land, supporting ground operations.
• As force projection ship, carrying any military forces to a theater of operations.
• As shipped eventual platform for aviation, serving as a platform for aerial delivery of strategic projection.
• As a vessel for operations other than war: humanitarian aid, evacuation of personnel crisis areas, hospital ship in disaster areas, etc..
___________________________________

From the RAN LHD webpage this is what they say and this is what they should concentrate upon - with perhaps in the future at some stage a couple of F-35Bs as required for fleet defence. Simples.

http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd
"The ship's roles are to:
• embark, transport and deploy an embarked force (Army in the case of the ADF but could equally be an allied Army or Marines), along with their equipment and aviation units, and
• carry out/support humanitarian missions."

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 07:39
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:It seems someone has trouble with reading comprehension or short term memory - this is what I said "...[PdeA] is permanently unavailable now". Now look at what the SpanGuvmnt has said on't. Their website is mostly in Spanish (which I do not understand and it is VERY SLOW) so I'll rely on this quote from the latest NAVANTIA (builder of the LHD) which summarises in some parts from my memory, material which is on the Spanish Navy Website (which used to be in English in part and I have a PDF in English made from it somewhere which I have to find):

"AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection
airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.)."
download/file.php?id=18976

You make the point that the PdeA was not made for F-35Bs - quelle surprise - whilst the JCI will not be operating them for some time apparently. So that is my point. You probably do not want to read much but over on the very long thread - probably start from the end to work backwards skipping irrelevancies there is a heck of a lot of material about these issues.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&start=870

This thought bubble of yours is utter TOSH: "...One the problems with embarking Bees on Oz's LHDs is that it might convey an unwarranted sense of self-satisfaction. "Oh look, we have "carriers" now; guess there no longer need to fret about our maritime security."..." Just bollocks. What a load of old rubbish. Get a grip.

You are just thowing words into the wind. Yes the two Oz LHDs were bought with a specific purpose and slightly modified internally to suit the two specific mission at least mentioned on the very long thread (see the link above) or on this thread also. NOW that the local security environment up north has changed somewhat and the first LHD is due to be handed over to the RAN by the end of the year then there is reason to start a rethink about it all. And this is obviously happening. No one is going to fret. What a bleedin' liberty you take. You have no clue.
You need to stop talking past everyone and chill the hell out. It's only an internet board ,and no one really gives a rat's a$$ what we think. I'll take whatever liberties I want and have fun doing it. ..... like a "shaking floor in an amusement park house of fun.”

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 07:47
by spazsinbad
Expect some backchat then. As I say - you are a troll.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 16:00
by exheadshedguy
spazsinbad wrote:you are a troll.

Pot, kettle, black.

as far as I'm concerned the only way any Oz F-35Bs are going to be on our Oz LHDs is for a form of temporary Fleet Defence for situations where this is required temporarily. Otherwise the Oz F-35Bs have to find their role in RAAF conops.

As it happens, no-one in Canberra gives a so much as aflying fat rat's f**k about your CONOPS fantasies. If this happens then these matters will be analysed by people years from now, all the while sourcing the Brits and US. They will not be consulting your endless spam nor taking heed of your spectacularly lunatic-land details for hyper lily-padding.

As for Malcolm Davis being a "good Prof" you obviously don't know that he's a long noted supporter of APA and their F-111 lunacy and is actually keen on the F-35 being scrapped. He shows up in the academic areas of defence in Canberra from time to time, and I've heard and read it all. In fact, he's just as boring and conceited and shrill as Spaz!

What would I know, though, Spaz? I only finished a 23 year stretch at the Russell fun palace recently and have forgotten more about the LHDs than you will ever know. Here, I'll even tell you something you obviously missed in your 24 hour per day OCD - they could be fitted as carriers for 20 Harriers and supporting rotary within three months. Refitting them for F-35s on a f/t carrier basis would not be a huge deal.

Stick that up your URL.

No wonder so many people left this place to talk about all this in another forum where Spaz has never been sighted.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 17:08
by spazsinbad
Thanks for the spray. And if only (where is this mythical forum BTW - I guess you'll keep it secret if youse don't want me there :devil: ) "...[Oz LHDs] could be fitted as carriers for 20 Harriers and supporting rotary within three months. Refitting them for F-35s on a f/t carrier basis would not be a huge deal." So there we have it. The Spanyards have been saying this since the beginning. Some occasional people from that mythical other forum have come here - years ago now I guess - to say otherwise. I'm not really bothered by your B/S curriculum vitae. Mine is well documented by now. I'll be a happy chappy seeing what transpires over the next year or so.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 17:50
by spazsinbad
Some quotes from an earlier happier time here for this 'exheadshedguy':
"11 Mar 2014 07:49 viewtopic.php?f=61&t=25232&p=267874#p267874

...Again, the JCI is not purpose-built for F-35s. If Spain goes down that road then refit will be required. Those comments about the ADF LHDs is hopelessly wrong. SS, it seems you're just parroting what a former DMO loudmouth used to write in this forum. He's a first class source on anything involving subs, but the LHD story happened far from his desk. The aviation spaces and facilities in the LHDs are near identical to JCI. They have no fitted ability to support Harriers because the ADF has no Harriers, not because design limits or changes. I have no idea of where this myth about aviation fuel bunkers being different came from - they are not. You are also fantasising to a ridiculous extent if you think an order for ADF F-35Bs would arise from any crossdeck showing-off. In the unlikely event that the ADF does a 180 degree turn on putting F-35Bs in the LHDs, then the two ships will be suitably refitted."

And out of the dim past:
"06 Oct 2012 07:24 viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20426&p=232346#p232346

Both this and the remarkably long thread on the ADF LHDs have some interesting comments. Spaz, your source on the internal configuration of the ships is incorrect, as the mods are very minimal. The biggest was to the sickbay, and there was/is no degradation of aviation support spaces in any compartments. Modifying them for F-35Bs would be a minor matter, done during scheduled refit without excessive time considerations. Re-establishing embarked fixed wing, however, would require long lead times.... All said and done, there is no consideration at any level in Canberra for even thinking about putting fast air back to sea in the ADF, let alone asking for a position paper, or, indeed anything else."

Aahh how times change.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 20:43
by lookieloo
exheadshedguy wrote:...If this happens then these matters will be analysed by people years from now...
How many years would you say we're talking about?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 21:14
by gtx
spazsinbad wrote:'popcorn' that may be so. However as far as I'm concerned the only way any Oz F-35Bs are going to be on our Oz LHDs is for a form of temporary Fleet Defence for situations where this is required temporarily. Otherwise the Oz F-35Bs have to find their role in RAAF conops.


Good points. It will be interesting to watch how the ADF responds to the request/direction to consider F-35Bs. I will be meeting with AVM Deeble (new Programme Manager for the JSF Division - i.e. What used to be NACC) in a few weeks time. I will ask him regarding it.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 21:40
by spazsinbad
'gtx' Cool :mrgreen: Thanks.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2014, 09:17
by spazsinbad
Wot HMAS Melbourne - specialised ASW carrier with Wessex Mk.31B Helos and Tracker S-2Es - looked like with three out of the four A4G Skyhawk fleet defence contingent onboard on deck up front. Probably photo taken 1971 (strop catcher fitted). The second photo shows the first version in 1969 (I think) will all the ASW assets on top and the four A4Gs up front.

'GTX' there are ONLY so many forums I can TROLL in any one session. I ain't the ELPbrigands. :devil:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2014, 09:32
by gtx
exheadshedguy wrote:No wonder so many people left this place to talk about all this in another forum where Spaz has never been sighted.


And that would be??

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2014, 18:32
by spazsinbad
AFTER the second batch of 8 A4Gs and 2 TA4Gs arrived late 1971 there were now 16 A4Gs total with 8 on VF-805, all seen onboard HMAS Melbourne early 1974 (two aft - one not easy to see being backed into position by the yellow tractor). There were other fitouts with 8+ A4Gs for exercises. This shows the flexibility of even a small aircraft carrier when enough air assets are available to mix'n match as required. For example back in 1970 two VF-805 A4Gs flew non-stop from NAS Nowra to arrest aboard HMAS Melbourne off Perth WA (A4Gs air refuelled though near Adelaide SA). This event demonstrated how A4Gs could re-inforce aircraft on the carrier over long distances. Similar event later went from NAS Nowra via the middle to Darwin and onto the carrier. Fleet Defence to OFFENSE.

In 1980 there was a different aircraft mix with Sea King ASW and some S-2E/Gs this time around + A4Gs and Wessex.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2014, 01:37
by noth
Don't suppose HMAS Melbourne ever had an E-1 Tracer or two as guests on board to do AIRCAP?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2014, 02:27
by spazsinbad
Note that I'm aware - don't think a Tracer would fit weight/size wise however I do not know Tracer details. S-2s fitted with a small amount of clearance (depending upon where measured) of the stbd wingtip to the closest aft part of the island. First USN S-2 onboard MELBOURNE was in the late 1950s AFAIK? I would have to look that up, first Skyhawk was a USN A-4B demo May 1965. The added deck graphic has the S-2 to scale on MELBOURNE deck - not mushroom.

For the times (now 40 odd years ago) MELBOURNE and escorts had powerful radars with Fighter Controllers directing the A4Gs to possibles. Which could be a lot of fun when they otherwise did not give you an AMF (Adios MutherTrucker) getting you to be in front of the target rather than just behind. :doh: :devil:

I (in early 1970s) did not chase any F-111s from the RAAF; however later chaps tell exercise stories of screaming down from a great height to sneak up behind an F-111 at low level and wave good bye as they pealed off from brief formation practice. All these stories and more are in the online PDFs.

IN this video "OCEANLINK" from 1957 a USN S-2 I presume can be seen onboard HMAS Melbourne:

https://static.awm.gov.au/video/F04981.WMV (48Mbs)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2014, 03:20
by Corsair1963
If, I won the lottery and could afford to purchase an ex-Military Aircraft for my personal use. The Scooter (Skyhawk) would definitely be on the shortlist.... :wink:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... C976fuQm4E

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2014, 04:49
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad

If you could get a old A-4 Skyhawk for a personal plane, would you do it?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2014, 05:15
by spazsinbad
OLD? Which model? Show me the money.....

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2014, 05:24
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote:OLD? Which model? Show me the money.....


How about the A-4M that was used by the USMC

Maybe you can find them in the boneyard in Arizona =D

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2014, 06:04
by spazsinbad
AFAIK all the remaining Skyhawk scraps in the boneyard were chopped up into little pieces and sold for scrap. There are warbird or civilian A-4s flying in the US - I do not know of any A-4Ms in that special place though. Perhaps when the civilian contractors sell their A-4 inventory the price may drop. Last I saw was a TA-4 for sale at $2mill US. That is one heck of a lot of dishes to wash.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2014, 10:58
by lookieloo
Well, here's that pesky matter of public-perception about what constitutes a "carrier." Spaz, you can throw another pissfit if you want, but the issue isn't going away.

Why Are We So Afraid of Small Carriers?
The Dangerous Aircraft Carrier Definitional

By Robert Farley


The “aircraft carrier” designation has become a bit of a joke among defense commentators on Twitter, with one Popular Science writer deciding to avoid controversy by referring to everything from the Japanese Izumo to the USS Nimitz as a “floaty movey flyer holder.” The definitional becomes more significant when we range beyond the relatively small community of defense and aviation specialists, and try to explain to the laity why a 45,000-ton ship that carries supersonic jet fighters is not, in fact, an “aircraft carrier.”[...]

This distinction is sensible, and goes some distance towards creating a framework for thinking about the differences between aircraft carrying ships. However, it also suffers from one glaring problem. Under the constraints that McGrath offers, the only aircraft carriers in the world are the U.S. Nimitz-class supercarriers and (perhaps) the French Charles De Gaulle.

China’s Liaoning, Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov, and India’s Vikramaditya all depend on ski-jumps for launching fixed wing aircraft, which similarly precludes them from operating command and control and support aircraft. Each of these countries all operate some variant of the Ka-31 airborne early warning helicopter, whose capabilities dramatically trail those of the dedicated E-2 Hawkeye used by the U.S. and French navies. Under the rubric of McGrath and others, the lack of command and control aircraft and the reliance on the Ka-31 would be enough to conclude that China, Russia, and India operate no “real” aircraft carriers.

The Brazilian Sao Paulo (when it sails at all) does not operate sufficient fixed wing support aircraft to earn the aircraft carrier distinction. Smaller carriers operated by Spain, Italy, and others don’t even come close. Even the Royal Navy’s two new 60,000-ton carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, will struggle to operate the sort of air wing that McGrath argues is necessary to earn the term “aircraft carrier.”

This leaves us in an awkward position. If we accept McGrath’s argument, the United States operates ten carriers, the French one carrier, and the rest of the world none at all. Words should be useful to us, and it should go without saying that we create definitions for utilitarian purposes. Constraining the definition of “aircraft carrier” so tightly that it only applies to one or two classes of ships (and perhaps a few more in historical context) makes it almost useless from a comparative or analytical standpoint.[...]

There’s no question that McGrath and others are correct that the Wasp and the America cannot perform the missions of the fleet as effectively as a Nimitz or Ford-class ship. But even allowing that big amphibs can to a significant extent conduct many of those missions that CVNs now perform threatens the case for the big carrier fleet.

This leaves us in an awkward situation, where the Navy sails a fleet of flat-decked aircraft carrying warships that will soon fly one of the most advanced tactical fighter jets in the future, and that are comparable in size and capability to the largest “aircraft carriers” that any other navy has to offer. And yet for bureaucratic and public relations reasons, we can’t call these warships “aircraft carriers,” even though they perform many of the missions that aircraft carriers execute, and in time of war would be expected to shoulder much of the burden placed on the larger carrier fleet.[...]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/article ... 07265.html there's more
So how is Oz gonna deal with this issue if F-35Bs are ordered (still a long-shot at this point IMO)? To me, the first step should be to decide if there's a need for carriers at all (I think there is, but I not Australian), the second step would be to determine if the LHDs can fulfill said need. Purchasing Bees on the sole basis of having ships technically capable of operating such planes may result in a large expenditure for little benefit. (Sorry again Spaz, but using them for just fleet defense would be gross under-utilization for such an expensive asset; and this isn't WWII, there are these things called aerial-tankers now that pretty much replaced aircraft-tenders awhile back.) The short of it: Figure out what a "carrier" is to you, then decide if you want it.

Of course:
1. Carrier for Oz is still pure speculation.
2. No one important cares what we think.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2014, 14:25
by spazsinbad
Semantics. "No one important cares what we think." And I care even less what you think. And I'll repeat. The RAAF / ADF have to figure out if the F-35Bs will be useful for their conops and will have the secondary role described on LHDs from time to time. IF NOT then no go. Fretting about what to call and LHD is easy. LHD.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2014, 00:21
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Semantics...
Sorry bub, but in this case, semantics matter. Fact is, you just don't seem to get how public consciousness works in general. When it comes to a complicated military issue, you have two opposing sides that generally already have their minds made up, either because they understand what's going on or because they have their own personal agendas to push (sometimes both). Everyone else knows only what their favorite sources of information tell them because they have neither the time nor inclination to check further. It matters not whether you bury everyone in documents supporting your position on an internet forum or not; it's the delivery that counts.

Granted, it's easier to make a slick delivery of your point of view when it's true; but if the wrong side is in possession of all the snark and entertainment value, that's the message that most will hear/remember anyways, including politicians who make the decisions and should know better. So when I say: "Oz has paid its money for two LHDs already, so I doubt anyone will be interested in our detailed explanations as to why they aren't carriers or why true carriers should be added to the fleet," that's what I'm talking about. If you put a picture of the Cavour in front of the average Australian voter 5 years from now and say "this is an aircraft carrier and we one," he's just gonna say "we already have those."

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2014, 02:26
by spazsinbad
I think you have not understood what is going on here - not that I care that much. As has been mentioned I believe on the other very long thread about this issue the Australian Federal Cabinet led by the PM and DefMin will decide after being given advice from the ADF team on this matter. That will be good enough for me when the White Paper 2015 is delivered I hope with a bunch of detail. Before that time the federal politicians may make another decision anyway depending on circumstances - particularly up north. IF tensions up north ameliorate then the reverse is likely perhaps. I do not have a conduit to the minds of the fed pollies except by their public/written statements.

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC (read backwards if youse can)
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&start=885

It was astonishing to most to hear both the PM and DefMin express interest in Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs. Then the PM directed the ADF to look at this concept for the WP2015. Simply amazing given the now decade long rejection of this concept from all and sundry. I have specified a particular low key approach. Yes I know no one is listening and I take great comfort from that.

Soon a former A4G pilot will become Chief of Defence Force (if he has not been sworn in already - I have not checked lately). His deputy is RAN. What a team to enable or kill the concept. As mentioned I'm already glad this concept is back on the agenda - that will do me enough gladness for this year alone. I'm easily pleased.

The Oz LHDs with their self loading cargo are high value assets depending on other assets to defend them. The odd F-35B is another defending asset if available which must be useful most of the time otherwise the ADF conops ashore.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2014, 03:45
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:...not that I care that much...
Given the way spittle's been flying from your direction, I beg to differ. In any case, there's an "ignore" function on the board now that you can use if I bother you so much. I won't use it because I like your posts, but whatevz...

Indeed, the sudden about-face was surprise; but like you said (and I'm pretty sure I said it too), it's all being driven by events "up-north" (aka Chinese behavior for everyone else). Who knows... next year everyone might be friends again and the LHDs will go back to disaster-relief.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2014, 10:27
by jimmer
spazsinbad wrote:Semantics. "No one important cares what we think." And I care even less what you think. And I'll repeat. The RAAF / ADF have to figure out if the F-35Bs will be useful for their conops and will have the secondary role described on LHDs from time to time. IF NOT then no go. Fretting about what to call and LHD is easy. LHD.


It seems like STOVL would be useful given the limited landing fields that might be available on some islands. A carrier doesn't make a lot of sense for Australia given their budget, an LHD with modest fixed wing capability would seem useful. If it is practical on those ships.

Re:

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2014, 21:48
by lookieloo
neptune wrote:
megasun wrote:For STOVL carrier, it would be nice to have a STOVL AWACS.
What about V-22?
It's comparable to C-2. Adding some conformal phase array radar to it, and it will be popular.
The E-2D crowd will fight tooth and nail but, who would have believed the Marines would have a stealth, supersonic STOVL?? :shock:

The V-22 has a good payload for avionics/ operators/ radar/ fuel. With the prop/ rotors out at the end of the wings, a smaller disc could be mounted up, top. :idea:

Or, as you said; maybe a couple of AN/APG-81s with a JSF mission system with EO/DAS. That would "tweak the beak" of the Hawkeyes. A lot of commonality in that package; JSF, V-22, Marines, LHAs, etc. Heck that would even solve a problem for the Brits and maybe even their long-distance cousins. :lol:

Sure beats nothing; with the E-2s stuck on the CVNs.
Well, it looks like the V-22 is out as an AWACS platform for the the time being. The British have already decided that Crowsnest will be a modular system carried by the extant Merlin fleet.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ter-system
Current competition is between Thales and LM for the radar-set, with LM offering side-mounted AESA pods (called "Vigilance") and Thales sticking with an improved version of the mechanical setup already being used. Winner to be selected in 2016.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... sor-system
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... eplacement
Image
Image
Thales had wanted to go with a ramp-dangled radome, but the UK apparently can't afford 10 new birds with special holes cut in the back, so back to the side-mount.
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... riers.html

This is where I wax speculatory:
Personally, I'm in favor of LM's idea; not so much out of fanboyish enthusiasm for all things AESA, but because Vigilance looks to be more adaptable for use on the Osprey (yeah, I know, but hope springs eternal). Question is: who would fund such a thing? The UK and Italy are locked in with AW product, and the USN is no-doubt scared $hitless at the prospect of amphibs carrying their own AEW assets. Best chance for an EV-22 is now somewhere in the Pacific methinks, where the extra speed and range might be more critical.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2014, 00:41
by delvo
That brings me back to why I still think the UK made a mistake by switching back from catapults, cables, and F-35C (CC&C!) to no catapults or cables and F-35B. I gather that the original change had been motivated by F-35C's advantages over F-35B, and the switch back was because the trouble of modifying the ship wasn't worth that difference alone, but I haven't seen any indication that they also took into account the fact that a CC&C ship would have allowed them to use C&C planes for other functions as well, not just the fighters. Now they've put themselves in the situation where all other aircraft carrier functions also must be done by S/VTOL vehicles instead of C&C planes.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2014, 01:30
by lookieloo
delvo wrote:That brings me back to why I still think the UK made a mistake by switching back from catapults, cables, and F-35C (CC&C!) to no catapults or cables and F-35B. I gather that the original change had been motivated by F-35C's advantages over F-35B, and the switch back was because the trouble of modifying the ship wasn't worth that difference alone, but I haven't seen any indication that they also took into account the fact that a CC&C ship would have allowed them to use C&C planes for other functions as well, not just the fighters. Now they've put themselves in the situation where all other aircraft carrier functions also must be done by S/VTOL vehicles instead of C&C planes.
Frankly, I don't think the UK would have had the minerals to go for an all-out CATOBAR airwing, even if they had gone with a CATOBAR ship.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2014, 01:37
by spazsinbad
A lot of that stuff (see thread title) is hashed and rehashed here many times over. Hash Browns are great though.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2014, 05:06
by Corsair1963
The F-35B combined with the Queen Elizabeth Class will be much better than previous Ski Jump based Carriers. Especially, is sortie generation and striking power! :twisted:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2014, 06:54
by jimmer
delvo wrote:That brings me back to why I still think the UK made a mistake by switching back from catapults, cables, and F-35C (CC&C!) to no catapults or cables and F-35B. I gather that the original change had been motivated by F-35C's advantages over F-35B, and the switch back was because the trouble of modifying the ship wasn't worth that difference alone, but I haven't seen any indication that they also took into account the fact that a CC&C ship would have allowed them to use C&C planes for other functions as well, not just the fighters. Now they've put themselves in the situation where all other aircraft carrier functions also must be done by S/VTOL vehicles instead of C&C planes.


I think it's hard to argue that a 65000 ton jump carrier isn't something of a pink elephant. The capability difference between a catobar air wing, and a stovl air wing is massive and will only get bigger.

That said, if you don't have the money, you don't have the money. I would have loved to buy a few investment properties a couple years ago at the bottom of the market. I didn't make a mistake though, I just didn't have the freaking money at the time to do it.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2014, 11:42
by lookieloo
jimmer wrote:I think it's hard to argue that a 65000 ton jump carrier isn't something of a pink elephant. The capability difference between a catobar air wing, and a stovl air wing is massive and will only get bigger.
It's not that hard to argue.

I used to think the same as you vis a vis "what's the point of a STOVL supercarrier?" If one is going to build ships that big and expensive anyways, it only makes common sense that one should have CATOBAR capability. If CATOBAR is out of reach, simply build smaller/cheaper ships and save some money.

Turns out that tonnage isn't the cost driver I thought it was, plus there's the matter of what Britain wanted these ships for... expeditionary power-projection. The previous Invincible-class carriers were designed for Cold War anti-submarine ops in the North Atlantic, even if they did prove adaptable as fleet/strike carriers in a limited capacity during the Falklands War and later conflicts. What Britain wanted for the 21st century was something better able to contribute toward global security. To that end, having a larger ship helps a great deal, with or without CATOBAR. Also, while a CATOBAR carrier does a lot of things better than a STOVL boat, the STOVL boat can leave off a number of things that a CATOBAR ship can't do without.
These include:
-The actual cats 'n traps (no steam by the way, so EMALS would be only option)
-Tankers (bolters often need gas to try again... a relative non-issue for STOVL ops)
-Constant training just for recovery (much easier to stop 'n land than land 'n stop)
All this adds up to ships that cost far less to build and maintain. They're also easier to lay-up when times are hard without worrying so much about loss of operational skill-sets.

Lastly, what on earth do you mean by "the capability difference between a catobar air wing, and a stovl air wing is massive and will only get bigger"? If anything, the F-35B will substantially narrow that capability gap, not the other way around. Add Osprey-based support aircraft to the mix and the difference will shrink even further. A STOVL supercarrier still isn't for everyone, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2014, 19:09
by jimmer
lookieloo wrote:
jimmer wrote:I think it's hard to argue that a 65000 ton jump carrier isn't something of a pink elephant. The capability difference between a catobar air wing, and a stovl air wing is massive and will only get bigger.
It's not that hard to argue.

I used to think the same as you vis a vis "what's the point of a STOVL supercarrier?" If one is going to build ships that big and expensive anyways, it only makes common sense that one should have CATOBAR capability. If CATOBAR is out of reach, simply build smaller/cheaper ships and save some money.

Turns out that tonnage isn't the cost driver I thought it was, plus there's the matter of what Britain wanted these ships for... expeditionary power-projection. The previous Invincible-class carriers were designed for Cold War anti-submarine ops in the North Atlantic, even if they did prove adaptable as fleet/strike carriers in a limited capacity during the Falklands War and later conflicts. What Britain wanted for the 21st century was something better able to contribute toward global security. To that end, having a larger ship helps a great deal, with or without CATOBAR. Also, while a CATOBAR carrier does a lot of things better than a STOVL boat, the STOVL boat can leave off a number of things that a CATOBAR ship can't do without.
These include:
-The actual cats 'n traps (no steam by the way, so EMALS would be only option)
-Tankers (bolters often need gas to try again... a relative non-issue for STOVL ops)
-Constant training just for recovery (much easier to stop 'n land than land 'n stop)
All this adds up to ships that cost far less to build and maintain. They're also easier to lay-up when times are hard without worrying so much about loss of operational skill-sets.

Lastly, what on earth do you mean by "the capability difference between a catobar air wing, and a stovl air wing is massive and will only get bigger"? If anything, the F-35B will substantially narrow that capability gap, not the other way around. Add Osprey-based support aircraft to the mix and the difference will shrink even further. A STOVL supercarrier still isn't for everyone, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept.


A catobar airwing has more capable F35's, more payload, more bringback, more range. The range is increased even further by having tankers, and range is becoming more important every year and with each new antiship missile the Russians or China develop. Catobar air wings also has dedicated EW aircraft that will have the next gen jammer, E2Ds, and of course the catobar air wing will have the UCLASS. STOVL offers none of those things. Which is why I say the capability gap will only grow.

I'm honestly not bashing STOVL, it definitely has a niche, but the capability difference is massive.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2014, 22:23
by lookieloo
jimmer wrote:A catobar airwing has more capable F35's, more payload, more bringback, more range. The range is increased even further by having tankers, and range is becoming more important every year and with each new antiship missile the Russians or China develop. Catobar air wings also has dedicated EW aircraft that will have the next gen jammer, E2Ds, and of course the catobar air wing will have the UCLASS. STOVL offers none of those things. Which is why I say the capability gap will only grow.

I'm honestly not bashing STOVL, it definitely has a niche, but the capability difference is massive.
Differences in range/payload/jamming/AEW are matters of degree, not out 'n out capability. Same goes for dealing with anti-ship missiles, which in any case are mostly delivered by platforms able to far-outdistance any shipborne TACAIR asset, CATOBAR or not. As for drones, from a program standpoint, we're hardly any closer to a CATOBAR UCLASS than we are to VTOL UCAVs able to operate off of any surface combatant (a more worthwhile project IMO).

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 01:24
by count_to_10
The capability gap between STOVL and CATOBAR aircraft is probably only going to narrow from here on out. Power plants are getting stronger, materials are getting lighter, and payloads are getting smaller.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 02:30
by popcorn
I don't know if it was Gen. Hostage or Gen. Carlisle, but one of them said that with the advent of the F-35B, the jet will take it's place as a main player in any joint TACAIR environment vs the Harrier with it's inherent limitations.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 03:10
by Corsair1963
The F-35B is going to be a game changer in my opinion. As it's going to have the benefits of both a STOVL Aircraft like the Harrier and a typical Conventional Tactical Fighter.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 04:42
by jimmer
count_to_10 wrote:The capability gap between STOVL and CATOBAR aircraft is probably only going to narrow from here on out. Power plants are getting stronger, materials are getting lighter, and payloads are getting smaller.


Don't really agree with that.

The UCLASS won't be STOVL, and it will become increasingly important. The superhornet replacement in all likelihood won't be STOVL.

The 2nd generation UCLASS and the 7th generation fighter will most likely have STOVL capability, or options for it, but we'll all be dead by then.

Obviously the F35B is more capable than a Harrier, but it's slower, has less range, less acceleration, and has less payload than the C. And eventually it will have to compete with other 5th gen aircraft that don't have the inherent limitations of STOVL planes.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 05:40
by lookieloo
jimmer wrote:Obviously the F35B is more capable than a Harrier, but it's slower, has less range, less acceleration, and has less payload than the C. And eventually it will have to compete with other 5th gen aircraft that don't have the inherent limitations of STOVL planes.
I do wish the peanut gallery would make up its mind. Twasn't so long ago that everyone was whining about the F-35C being the slowest variant. Stop making $hit up... all three types have the same Mach 1.6 top speed, though some get there faster than others (that conversation is elsewhere).

Also, limited by STOVL or not (realistic combat radius is still better than Hornet), the F-35B isn't going to be outclassed by anything built overseas for the next 20 years, let alone anything in wide use. That means countries other than the US can now afford respectable carriers. Combined with our own fleet of STOVL ships, that translates into reduced pressure on our already overextended fleet of CVNs.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 12:32
by quicksilver
jimmer wrote:Obviously the F35B is more capable than a Harrier, but it's slower, has less range, less acceleration, and has less payload than the C. And eventually it will have to compete with other 5th gen aircraft that don't have the inherent limitations of STOVL planes.


Sounds like the compensatory catechisms spoken in some Navy ready rooms.

Some people are in for a rude awakening.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 13:47
by popcorn
jimmer wrote: And eventually it will have to compete with other 5th gen aircraft that don't have the inherent limitations of STOVL planes.

The F-35B already outranges and is a far more capable aircraft than a SH and can perform basically any mission it's siblings can. In fact, mission planners will value the F-35B for it's versatility plus capitalize on capabilities uniquely it's own.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2014, 22:37
by jimmer
lookieloo wrote:
jimmer wrote:Obviously the F35B is more capable than a Harrier, but it's slower, has less range, less acceleration, and has less payload than the C. And eventually it will have to compete with other 5th gen aircraft that don't have the inherent limitations of STOVL planes.
I do wish the peanut gallery would make up its mind. Twasn't so long ago that everyone was whining about the F-35C being the slowest variant. Stop making $hit up... all three types have the same Mach 1.6 top speed, though some get there faster than others (that conversation is elsewhere).


Also, limited by STOVL or not (realistic combat radius is still better than Hornet), the F-35B isn't going to be outclassed by anything built overseas for the next 20 years, let alone anything in wide use. That means countries other than the US can now afford respectable carriers. Combined with our own fleet of STOVL ships, that translates into reduced pressure on our already overextended fleet of CVNs.


I didn't say that it had more top end speed, I said it had better acceleration. Which is true.

The day the F35B is operational, the gap between STOVL and CATOBAR will close dramatically. Then it will increase for the next 20 or 30 years because stealth (and the B) is part of an overall system, not separate from it, and it will become increasingly dependent on other aspects of the system as time goes on. Jamming from UAV's and Growlers isn't going to become less important over time, it's going to become more important. Performance will become more important as other 5th gen fighters come on line. Long range ISR isn't going to become less important either. Carriers will operate further and further offshore which will make range more important.

For bombing Syria or Libya, a STOVL carrier or amphib will be fine, for operating in highly contested space it will need land based or Catobar Air Wing support which may or may not be available.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 01:07
by popcorn
Expect STOVL ships to evolve with greater capabilities going forward.
- advanced AEWC capabilities e.g., Crowsnest -class (perhaps on MV-22 in the future?)
- advanced EW systems on STOVL aircraft e.g. USMC investment in inhouse EW program
- ship-based A2A refuelling e.g. MV-22 tanker proof-of-concept
- long-range power projection via Osprey/F-35B combo enabling CONOPs not preciously possible
- DARPA Tern to provide Predator-class MALE UAV extending ISR coverage from,station 600nmi from LCS.. no-brainer operating multiple Terns from STOVL Ship.

LHA/LHD will never be a CVN and vice-versa. But the former,will increasingly be able to tackle ever more challenging missions independently of the latter. It's a matter of providing scalable levels of force and the increasingly capable STOVL ship is a great force multiplier for a Navy stretched thin by worldwide commitments. The result is greater flexibility to respond in a more timely manner to a majority of crises without having to task a CSG from day one. Just upsize the force with CSG(s) and land-based TACAIR should the situation warrant.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 01:42
by quicksilver
"I didn't say that it had more top end speed, I said it had better acceleration. Which is true."

No, that is not true. The 'B' has better acceleration -- both subsonic and transonic -- and the difference is substantial. And, the 'C' has better acceleration than SH with a single centerline.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 02:26
by count_to_10
jimmer wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:The capability gap between STOVL and CATOBAR aircraft is probably only going to narrow from here on out. Power plants are getting stronger, materials are getting lighter, and payloads are getting smaller.


Don't really agree with that.

The UCLASS won't be STOVL, and it will become increasingly important. The superhornet replacement in all likelihood won't be STOVL.

The 2nd generation UCLASS and the 7th generation fighter will most likely have STOVL capability, or options for it, but we'll all be dead by then.

Obviously the F35B is more capable than a Harrier, but it's slower, has less range, less acceleration, and has less payload than the C. And eventually it will have to compete with other 5th gen aircraft that don't have the inherent limitations of STOVL planes.

There are already VTOL drones in the works.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 02:53
by lookieloo
jimmer wrote:I didn't say that it had more top end speed, I said it had better acceleration. Which is true.

The day the F35B is operational, the gap between STOVL and CATOBAR will close dramatically. Then it will increase for the next 20 or 30 years because stealth (and the B) is part of an overall system, not separate from it, and it will become increasingly dependent on other aspects of the system as time goes on. Jamming from UAV's and Growlers isn't going to become less important over time, it's going to become more important. Performance will become more important as other 5th gen fighters come on line. Long range ISR isn't going to become less important either. Carriers will operate further and further offshore which will make range more important.

For bombing Syria or Libya, a STOVL carrier or amphib will be fine, for operating in highly contested space it will need land based or Catobar Air Wing support which may or may not be available.
Ok... this is the part where I realize that you're intentionally wasting everyone's time and cease bothering with point-by-point argument. Now I'm just gonna focus on the single dumbest thing in each of your posts.


Did you seriously just claim that the F-35C has better acceleration than the F-35B? Again... stop making $hit up. While the Cee certainly has some advantages over the Bee, acceleration ain't one of 'em.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 03:08
by lookieloo
duplicate

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 03:38
by lookieloo
count_to_10 wrote:There are already VTOL drones in the works.
In the works, but not of nearly high-enough priority.
Image

It'd be no UCLASS performance wise; but again, that's a matter of degree and I suspect our fiscally squeamish allies would be satisfied with basic UCAV capability off their flat-tops, especially if it's able to operate off of surface combatants as well.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 04:55
by lookieloo
The usual for this thread.
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/techn ... lessons-uk

Australia’s jump jet strike fighter option: lessons from the UK
19 June 2014


OPINION: If Australia is serious about buying the jump jet version of the Joint Strike Fighter it would be wise to look at why the UK is the only country to change its mind on which version of the aircraft to buy.

In 2010, the British government decided against buying the F-35B jump jet as previously planned because of the limitations of the aircraft. It later changed its mind as the costs converting the aircraft carrier for the F-35C carrier variant were too expensive.

In the lead up to a new Australian Defence White Paper and Force Structure Review, Prime Minister Tony Abbott this year ordered Defence to assess the benefits of F-35B jump jets and converting the Canberra class Landing Helicopter Docks (LHD) to accommodate them.

Previously, the RAAF was committed to buying only the F-35A version of the Joint Strike Fighter[...]


While converting the Royal Australian Navy’s LHDs would not be anywhere near as expensive as it was for the British carrier, it would certainly be an expensive exercise.

While the Canberra class LHDs retain the ski jump for STOVL aircraft, the decision to keep them was based on the evaluation that it was cheaper than removing them.

Otherwise, the infrastructure necessary to support aircraft, such as fuel lines and storage, had deliberately not been incorporated as it would have added unnecessary costs to support a capability that they were not intended to have.

In Senate Estimates hearings recently, senior Defence officials admitted that little work had so far been done on the possibility of buying a STOVL variant.

They said a “fairly superficial examination” had been done up until now because there had not been a “serious consideration” of the aircraft flying from the LHDs[...]
Ok, first they pinky-swear "no F-35Bs," then they say it's been considered an option "since day one." Some say it's basically Bee-ready and other say it's been built without fixed-wing features standard to the original. I guess we'll just keep waiting for that white paper.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 05:22
by spazsinbad
Typical for an academic not familiar with the subject. Ships are changed over their lives quite a bit - however I cannot predict the future - I can only predict the past. Just to stick my neck out - any major warship with any longevity has a lot of changes made either during planned or unplanned refits. HMAS Melbourne over a 27 year life was a classic but YMMV.
"...While converting the Royal Australian Navy’s LHDs would not be anywhere near as expensive as it was for the British carrier, it would certainly be an expensive exercise..."

This 'expensive' is what will be quantified I'll imagine for the 2015 White Paper.

As for the other stuff it is all true but one's interpretation may vary if the background to all of this is not known. Over more than a decade - since the LHDs were investigated and ordered the bottom drawer plan for F-35Bs on LHDs has existed. Of course I have not seen it but no surprises there. Indeed one CoN (Chief of Navy [RAN]) was severely castigated for daring to mention that a third LHD should be purchased to do what? Fnose. That was some time ago and I'll have to look at all my shite to get the details - so true is true is true - but whatever.
"...the infrastructure necessary to support aircraft, such as fuel lines and storage, had deliberately not been incorporated as it would have added unnecessary costs to support a capability that they were not intended to have...."

This has been hammered home over the long life of the very long thread and elsewhere on this forum. Also it was mentioned recently by the ADF bigwigs in the Senate hearing? Makes sense if there were only TWO of the FOUR missions otherwise envisioned by the Spanith for their LHD - one of which was the carrier of aeroplanos - which our Ozziefied LHDs were not built for at the time. Make sense. I give in if it does not. One can imagine that despite an Oz Fed Parl Report back in 2004 recommending F-35Bs on LHDs (already mentioned elsewhere) that this was ignored and so there goes that.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 05:47
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Typical for an academic not familiar with the subject. Ships are changed over their lives quite a bit -
+1


Take a look at how ships like Ark Royal and Midway were modified over their service lives and one wonders why it's so damned hard to put CATOBAR decks on the QEs, or F-35Bs on, well... anything. All you'll ever hear is a constant din about why these things can't be done. I'm sorry, but if an axial-deck carriers from WWII can be modified to operate F-8s, F-4s, or F/A-18s without bankrupting nations, then I don't see why it's so f*cking impossible to put F-35Bs on a 30-40,000 ton LHD, LHA, or DDH.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 06:33
by spazsinbad
Well you will need to read the now also very long thread about MOD in a MUDDLE re CVF. They did the math. It was too expensive and probably at the time too risky due to problems with EMALS reliability (since solved it seems according to NAVAIR). Also recall at the time the turnabout turnaround this lady ain't for turning imbroglio the F-35B was on probation. Some still think it still is but I cannot undo that. So in a nutshell it was TOO expensive and TOO hard but I do not make these decisions. Perhaps reading the CVF thread mentioned may help. I cannot help that the MUDDLE went on and on and on and on and on....

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 06:56
by spazsinbad
This article is probably on the very long thread elsewhere but it is here again from 2007 to give an indication of how this 'plan' has been in mind all along (since before 2004 I'll remind myself) - not officially of course because that would be telling eh.

Amphibious Assault & Power Projection Platforms
Nov 2007

“The maximum speed is limited to 21 knots, quite scarce for a "real" carrier but good for an amphibious vessel.
The overall length of 230m enables a 202 x 32m flight deck with six landing spots for helicopters and two elevators,
one fore the island on the starboard side and one central on the stern. The flight deck can also operate up to four
CH-47 CHINOOK heavy helicopters of the Army Aviation, and the aft landing spot was dimensioned also to operate
the V-22 OSPREY tilt-rotor aircraft.

The 3,000m2 hangar deck can house up to twelve aircraft, while the adjacent light vehicle garage can provide additional space if required. The maximum aircraft transport capability amounts to 30 helicopters, including up to ten CH-47s in storage configuration without rotor blades. In turn, also the hangar can be used as extension for the light vehicle garage. In the vehicle transport configuration the full load displacement rises to 27,100 tons, & the overall capacity includes up to 30 LEOPARD 2 MBTs, a large number of wheeled vehicles, & up to 144 TEU containers. The stern well deck has a capability of four LCM-1E landing craft & is compatible with the US LCAC air cushion landing craft; when no landing craft are carried, the well deck offers additional space for up to 16 MBTs. The BPE offers accommodations for 1443 personnel: 243 ship's complement, 103 command staff, 172 aviation, 23 landing craft, & 902 troops.

The BPE will be capable to fulfil the roles of Maritime Component Commander (MCC), Commander Joint Task Force (CJTF), or Commander Amphibious Task Force (CATF), thanks to the large communications suite, command facilities,
& staff accommodations. Another important feature is the extensive medical facilities, with a dedicated elevator linking
the stern well dock, the flight deck and the hangar to the hospital, in order to facilitate & accelerate the movement of casualties.

The Australian requirement called for a combined (two ships) capability able to embark, sustain & deliver a combined arms battle group made up of a landing combat force of some 1200 and a supporting group of 800 for up to 45 days afloat and for ten days ashore. The combined airlift capability of the two ships will enable to launch a simultaneous vertical assault with a force of 200, thanks to the MH-90 helicopters also being procured. Both the DCNS and Navantia designs were modified to better respond to the Australian requirements.

The Spanish solution was primarily selected on the basis of its larger troop capacity, much more than its competitor [frog MISTRAL], and (possibly) the presence of a ski jump on the flight deck, that could be interesting to enhance interoperability with the USMC or should Australia select the STOVL variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The ships will be fitted with the Saab 9LV combat system.”

Source: http://www.epicos.com/WARoot/News/Amphi ... ection.pdf


Then there is this 'news' 25 Mar 2008:
Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list
25 Mar 2008

"THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier,...

...It is understood that the wish list was the final straw in the tense relationship between the Government and Chief of Navy Vice-Admiral Russ Shalders - who will be replaced in July by Rear Admiral Russell Crane....

...The RAN wants a third ship to carry vertical take-off fighter jets.

Its last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, was decommissioned in 1982 before being sold for scrap.

The latest ships are 10m longer and 8m wider than the Melbourne and will be built in Spain and fitted out at the Tenix shipyard in Melbourne.

The Spanish navy will carry 30 Harrier jump jets aboard its similar ships.

They will each cost more than $1.7 billion. The fighters would cost about $100 million each. The destroyers will cost about $2 billion each, taking the total cost to more than $4 billion....

...The wish list is what the RAN would like to see make up part of the White Paper process which will later this year provide a strategic blueprint for the defence of the nation for the next 20 years...."

http://www.news.com.au/national/aircraf ... 1115876869

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 12:30
by KamenRiderBlade
The Australians should really just get in on the British Carrier design and ask for the rights to produce their own clone of it.

Save them the trouble of actually designing a new Carrier and get a state of the art LHD design.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 17:17
by spazsinbad
Thanks for telling Ozzies what to do. They will figure it out. There must be a zillion ship builder plans in the ship builder drawers for various STOVL carriers. First our ADF needs to figure out if we need the F-35B, then if a 3rd flat deck ship is required the question arises: what should that ship be? There is a long way to go before Australia reaches that point. Much depends on what happens up north in the next year or so.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2014, 19:23
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for telling Ozzies what to do. They will figure it out. There must be a zillion ship builder plans in the ship builder drawers for various STOVL carriers. First our ADF needs to figure out if we need the F-35B, then if a 3rd flat deck ship is required the question arises: what should that ship be? There is a long way to go before Australia reaches that point. Much depends on what happens up north in the next year or so.


:P

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2014, 05:56
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Well you will need to read the now also very long thread about MOD in a MUDDLE re CVF. They did the math. It was too expensive and probably at the time too risky due to problems with EMALS reliability (since solved it seems according to NAVAIR). Also recall at the time the turnabout turnaround this lady ain't for turning imbroglio the F-35B was on probation. Some still think it still is but I cannot undo that. So in a nutshell it was TOO expensive and TOO hard but I do not make these decisions. Perhaps reading the CVF thread mentioned may help. I cannot help that the MUDDLE went on and on and on and on and on....

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969
I understand perfectly well the maths behind the decision making; however, this does not mean I have to respect it. If all decisions by everyone were made according to maths, there would be no wars and no military spending because such things are inherently wasteful and unproductive. Unfortunately, no one can seriously expect anyone else to be so reasonable; ergo, the UK builds supercarriers. The idea that weapons purchases should be based solely on economic considerations is the absolute height of irony when you really think about it.


So yes, I see the reasoning behind cost/benefit considerations. I also see little excuse for not buying the utmost capability one can afford, hang the expense. The UK wouldn't turn into Sri Lanka if the QEs were both fitted with CATOBAR and operated by the RN on a regular basis. Likewise, there are plenty of nations with coastlines and overseas-interest that have the wherewithal to build/operate Cavour-sized STOVL carriers without requisitioning everyone's family silver.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2014, 06:08
by spazsinbad
It matters not a lot to me what the UK do - they make themselves somewhat irrelevant to my region and have been doing that since the 1950s. Hence my country has strong ties with the US whilst these continue to be stronger. Just a few weeks ago our PM signed more base for USMC agreements or similar with the US (details not important).

Whatever your reasoning for what the UK has done with their change of mind from F-35B to F-35C and back to F-35B they have done that nevertheless. What is important is what they do and not why they say they do/did do something. I do not expect to know the inner workings of another country let alone my own. Perhaps in 30 years time I will know about the Cabinet discussions in Oz about the F-35B on LHDs however that prospect is unlikely. What I will likely know is what is released to the public in the meantime. That'll do me.

The CVFs with F-35Bs have now a long history of development. Much is known by the RN/RAF about how they will operate the aircraft with helos etc from CVF. Next to decide next year is will two CVFs be in service or only one. It seems a no brainer but from my viewpoint the Brits can make some odd decisions - no matter their stated reason. However that is largely irrelevant - I would prefer to know more about the F-35B / CVF combination for the sake of 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs' - as required. Still miles to go before I sleep however.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2014, 07:08
by KamenRiderBlade


The British discuss their reasoning behind their Aircraft Carrier decisions.

As to how true this is to reality, I'll leave that judgement up to people who have more insight on this matter than me.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2014, 07:14
by KamenRiderBlade
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -china-sea

Another reason why NATO and it's allies need carriers, to keep China in check when they do stupid things like this to try to artificially expand their maritime borders

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2014, 07:26
by neurotech
KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-19/china-builds-artificial-islands-in-south-china-sea

Another reason why NATO and it's allies need carriers, to keep China in check when they do stupid things like this to try to artificially expand their maritime borders

You do realize that NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and dealing with China is a Pacific Rim concern for the most part. Basically, Japan and South Korea are major regional military partners.

That said, I'd be surprised if Japan and/or Korea didn't end up buying F-35Bs for a small carrier.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2014, 09:12
by KamenRiderBlade
neurotech wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-19/china-builds-artificial-islands-in-south-china-sea

Another reason why NATO and it's allies need carriers, to keep China in check when they do stupid things like this to try to artificially expand their maritime borders

You do realize that NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and dealing with China is a Pacific Rim concern for the most part. Basically, Japan and South Korea are major regional military partners.

That said, I'd be surprised if Japan and/or Korea didn't end up buying F-35Bs for a small carrier.


I know what NATO stands for, but given how everything is a global problem nowadays. It makes sense for dealing with issues as an alliance.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2014, 22:41
by gtx
Some thoughts on adding fixed wing aircraft to the Canberra Class LHDs here (starting on pg 27)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2014, 00:05
by 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)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2014, 00:15
by 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)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2014, 06:18
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:
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.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2014, 07:24
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: 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. :devil:

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. :doh:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2014, 06:38
by 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

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2014, 07:24
by 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

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2014, 00:46
by 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...

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2014, 01:46
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote: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.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2014, 03:19
by 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

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2014, 04:15
by 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.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2014, 05:14
by 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). :devil:

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)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2014, 23:29
by 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

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2014, 17:10
by 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

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2014, 19:25
by 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.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2014, 19:28
by gtx
lookieloo wrote: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.


Actually they are way ahead of that having for years now based aircraft in places such as Australia, France and the USA.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2014, 20:39
by lookieloo
gtx wrote:
lookieloo wrote: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.
Actually they are way ahead of that having for years now based aircraft in places such as Australia, France and the USA.
Everyone here knows that already, but there's no substitute for having one's own piece of sovereign and mobile real-estate.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2014, 21:22
by gtx
Not disagreeing. Just pointing out that they are already addressing the land shortage issue.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2014, 22:50
by KamenRiderBlade
Somebody in the MOD in the UK should try to get on the phone with somebody important in Singapore.

Sell Singapore the HMS Illustrious class carrier so they can meet their requirement for JMMS.

=D

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2014, 05:30
by weasel1962
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Somebody in the MOD in the UK should try to get on the phone with somebody important in Singapore.

Sell Singapore the HMS Illustrious class carrier so they can meet their requirement for JMMS.

=D


Illustrious sale to Singapore is not going to happen as too crew intensive. More likely newbuild in Singapore by local shipbuilder (modified Endurance 160 design). Looks like only 1 ship if title is correct.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/resour ... _news.html

New ship

Learning from its previous HADR missions, the SAF realised the value of having larger naval vessels which could act as springboards for extended helicopter operations, said Dr Ng.

"We have to address our challenges, not only in the way that we train but in the way that we forward position...(to) prepare for a different environment," Dr Ng explained. When something hits, you need to have the scale (to respond adequately).

"While the Landing Ships Tank have served us (well), we are seriously considering a larger Joint Multi-Mission Ship (JMMS) that would have greater capacity and greater range to respond."

He explained: "When we responded to Typhoon Haiyan...the typhoon was so devastating that communications 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 added that the SAF was in the final evaluation stages to decide on the JMMS's configuration to meet operational requirements.

But amid all the changes afoot in the SAF, its mission remains the same. "We recognise that our primary mission and our responsibility is to keep Singapore secure."

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2014, 05:43
by Corsair1963
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Somebody in the MOD in the UK should try to get on the phone with somebody important in Singapore.

Sell Singapore the HMS Illustrious class carrier so they can meet their requirement for JMMS.

=D



Nice idea but Singapore can afford a design tailor fit for them....(IMHO)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2014, 08:28
by thepointblank
Corsair1963 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Somebody in the MOD in the UK should try to get on the phone with somebody important in Singapore.

Sell Singapore the HMS Illustrious class carrier so they can meet their requirement for JMMS.

=D



Nice idea but Singapore can afford a design tailor fit for them....(IMHO)

Additionally, they also have the capability to design and build such ships locally. Witness the Endurance class LPD's.

ST Marine demoed a model of a light carrier based upon the Endurance class LPD's a few months back. With the recent messages being sent from Singapore's defence minister regarding the usefulness of such ships, they could be engaging in further studies to optimize the design for what they envision.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2014, 09:00
by weasel1962
Per the press release, they are more likely on the tail end of the "further studies" stage and probably finalising the actual design. The Endurance 160 design was publicly revealed in year 2010 so its at least 3-4 years in the works already.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2014, 10:04
by popcorn
Such a ship would be very useful in a HADR role. No whiff of possible TACAIR capability from what I read though.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2014, 06:06
by spazsinbad
ON previous page there was a question about overhanging aircraft parts on lifts.
F-35Bs At Sea F-35B BF-2 and BF-4 aboard the USS Wasp
Photo by Michael Jackson 14 November 2011
Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_1017.jpg

http://media.hamptonroads.com/cache/fil ... 611000.jpg

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 22:53
by simon257
Superb aerial images of HMS Illustrious next to HMS Queen Elizabeth at Rosyth:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Queen.html

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2014, 19:35
by gtx
simon257 wrote:Superb aerial images of HMS Illustrious next to HMS Queen Elizabeth at Rosyth:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Queen.html


Nice - thanks for posting. :D

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2014, 13:12
by noth
Intriguing detail on that Daily Mail illustration, they show a jet blast deflector. I've been following the CVF development for years but I've never heard of one being added... and it doesn't show up on the vertical shots of the carrier taken yesterday. Anyone know a bit more about this?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2014, 22:00
by spazsinbad
On this forum there would be a few references to the deleted JBD. I'll repost that info here:
Preparing for take-off: UK ramps up F-35 carrier integration effort
11 Dec 2008 International Defence Review

“...In the final analysis, the decision has been taken to delete the JBD from the STOVL CVF design. Cdr Lison explains: "We determined from the CFD modelling that the legacy JBD did not offer adequate protection. Alternative designs were considered which offered some benefit, but two considerations persuaded us to delete the requirement.

"First, the nozzle scheduling of the F-35B on take-off has yet to be fully established, and there was a risk that the jet blast would simply 'bounce' over the JBD. Second, the JBD was in a single fixed position on the flight deck, so there was no flexibility with regard to the length of the take-off run." [The most important reason I would suggest.]...”

Source: http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=120

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2014, 08:45
by beepa
After watching the simulation of HMS Queen Elizabeth here..

http://youtu.be/GwAERRMw6QU

I was wondering if the F35b will use the lift fan/nozzle to assist with launch from the Ski Jump or will she go full burner and hit it like a normal take off?? Also didn't notice any JBD in use, but it's only a simulation.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2014, 08:53
by spazsinbad
Sorry to harp on this however it has been mentioned a few times now. Not your fault but the fault of the fwits making that incorrect video (perhaps on illinformed guesswork) many years ago now. That video has been edited and repeated time and time again so I guess we will have to get used to how WRONG it is - particularly the ski jump takeoff. It will be done in STOVL mode. The whole ship runway and ski jump is set up for that effort - nothing less will do. Forget about any conventional burner takeoff - is not going to happen. They have STOVL aircraft so they will take advantage of that STO and GO! Maybe we should have a sticky post about this particular video. Oh well.

The lack of JBD is mentioned on previous page above your post.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2014, 23:08
by simon257
HMS Queen Elizabeth was removed yesterday from No1 Dock in Rosyth and moved to the fitting out basin. Some really good images of the ship and a video taken by a RN Sea King, unfortunately some F-35 bashing seems to the order of the day as well!:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jets.html

The first Blocks for HMS Prince of Wales are being loaded onto barges in Portsmouth and Glasgow. Assembly will start in September:
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defenc ... -1-6187436
http://www.imeche.org/news/engineering/ ... or-journey

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2014, 01:22
by lookieloo
simon257 wrote:HMS Queen Elizabeth was removed yesterday from No1 Dock in Rosyth and moved to the fitting out basin. Some really good images of the ship and a video taken by a RN Sea King, unfortunately some F-35 bashing seems to the order of the day as well!:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jets.html

The first Blocks for HMS Prince of Wales are being loaded onto barges in Portsmouth and Glasgow. Assembly will start in September:
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defenc ... -1-6187436
http://www.imeche.org/news/engineering/ ... or-journey
Go here... viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&start=960

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2014, 12:40
by popcorn
Over at DefenceTalk forum, poster Engines101 gives his insights as a claimed F-35B ship integration engineer on the feasibility of operating the STOVL jet from a non-US HD.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy- ... -12136-11/

StingrayOz and others,

Perhaps I can help here. I have a few years STOVL experience and worked on the F-35B programme as a ship integration engineer.

There is a common (and wholly understandable) viewpoint that the F-35B has 'problems', which include operating from ships. This viewpoint than informs assumptions about what it can and can't do. Here are a few facts that might help inform this thread.

1. The F-35B can vertically land with a full internal weapons load of around 3,600 pounds, plus enough fuel for a go around, full IMC circuit and land. That's a fairly impressive performance for a normal aircraft, let alone one that has to do a VL. But it's not an accident. It was the driving Key Performance Parameter (KPP) for the F-35B. The lift system is performing as per requirements - there is no engine 'performance drop'. The main problem the aircraft had was excessive weight, which caused a significant redesign that started in 2002/3.

2. It can carry out VLs with a full load over a range of temperatures and pressures defined in the customers' requirements. This was the 'US MIL Tropical Day'. However, back in 2002, the UK initiated studies into the possibility of getting back on board at even higher temperatures and lower pressures. This set of conditions was the 'UK Hot Day'. (essentially top end of the Persian Gulf in summer months). One of the options for achieving this was the 'Short Rolling Vertical Landing' or SRVL. It's been investigated now for some time, and looks very achievable on a large deck. I think it would be tight on an LHD, but might be possible.

3. MTOW from a ski jump is not yet known, will depend on upcoming tests at at Pax. It will be very similar to MTOW using a normal rolling takeoff. StingrayOz is very much on the button here.

4. The CONOPS for land bases would be to use the full capability of the aircraft to carry out RVLs in around 1200 feet at higher landing weights (if required) and STOs to take off at MTOW. In both cases, using far less runway that a conventional aircraft. This would also allow ops from runways at 'hot and high' conditions that rule out many conventional aircraft.

4. So, my view is that an F-35B could operate at designed MTOW off a Juan Carlos LHD up to US Mil Tropical day.

However, Sting (and hauritz) are, in my view, off target about high intensity ops, but that's understandable given the amount of disinformation out there about deck heating. This may help.

The F-35B's exhaust environment has been the subject of years of testing. The team know far more about it than the Uk ever did with the Harrier. Testing of flight deck and runway materials started in 2003.

The bottom line is that operations from LHD flight decks are fully achievable. The key problem is not deck strength, or melting, but mainly the ability of the non skid coatings to withstand the blast. The same problem affected Harrier operations. Modern coatings are being applied that have excellent resistance, but like any aspect of naval aviation, this will (and can) be managed.

So, my view is that, just like the RN and the USMC have proved for some 30 years, high intensity F-35B ops from an LHD deck are technically achievable. Of course, there has to be other stuff on and in the ship to support that, but the aircraft is not, in my view, the stopper.

As ever, it all depends on what you want the aircraft to do. Sure, the F-35B will not have the same performance in all respects that the F-35A has. But the F-35A can't operate from a ship. That's not a problem as long as you have all the land bases you need to protect a maritime operation. So here's one final set of (hopefully interesting) facts. The first aircraft shot down by a UK aircraft in WW2 was shot down by a naval aircraft. The last aircraft shot down in WW2 was by a naval aircraft. Since WW2, every single aircraft shot down by a UK aircraft has been shot down by a naval aircraft.

Putting aircraft on ships gets the aircraft closer to many of the fights. Choices about F-35B depend (in my view) on the fights you want to get involved in.

Hope this lot helps, and thanks for allowing me to contribute to the thread

Engines101

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2014, 19:31
by spazsinbad
Sounds to me that 'Engines101' is the same 'Engines' over at Pprune - a sterling knowledgeable well STOVL experienced character with great insight into the program - although he is no longer in it he was there at the beginning of UK STOVL.

This is HE writing here: I believe we will have this article on the other very long thread - I'll check.... GO HERE DOODS: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=273727&hilit=George#p273727
LHD and STOVL – An Engineer’s View
25 Jun 2014 Steve George

"This article was originally published on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute‘s blog, The Strategist, on June 20, 2014....

...Steve George was an air engineer officer in the Royal Navy for 28 years, and served in HMS Invincible during the 1982 Falklands operation. During his career, he was closely involved with the Sea Harrier, and also with joint RN/RAF Harrier operations. Retiring from the RN as a Commander, he joined the JSF programme to work on F-35B ship suitability. He is now an engineering consultant."

Source: http://isnblog.ethz.ch/security/lhd-and ... neers-view

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2014, 22:09
by spazsinbad
Well Well Well - this is a turnup....
Stavridis: Russian Mistrals Could Work Well As NATO Rapid Reaction Force Asset
04 Sep 2014 Sam LaGrone

"...NATO’s Military Assets
It wouldn’t be the first time NATO purchased and operated its own military assets.

“There would be a precedent for joint ownership of NATO maritime and even air assets. NATO has operated the research ship NRV Alliance as well as the oceanographic tender CRV Leonardo,” Wertheim said. “NATO also operates a fleet of E-3 airborne early warning and control (AWACS) aircraft as well as a force of C-17 cargo aircraft operated by multi-national NATO crewmembers.”

The U.S. Navy also experimented with mixed multi-national NATO crews to some success in the 1960s.

The inclusion of the Mistrals into the NATO arsenal opens up a range of possibilities for the reaction force.

The Russian Mistrals — Vladivostok and Sevastopol — have been modified to carry heavier Russian helicopters and are optimized for Arctic operations, allowing a rare cold weather operating capability for NATO. Most Western ships are optimized to work in tropical climates.

The ships could also serve as a logistics sea base for expeditionary forces from NATO without creating a large terrestrial footprint — much like U.S. Navy and Marine Amphibious Ready Groups and Marine Expeditionary Units. (ARG/MEU)...."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2014/09/04/stavrid ... #more-9093

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2014, 22:48
by archeman
spazsinbad wrote:Well Well Well - this is a turnup....
Stavridis: Russian Mistrals Could Work Well As NATO Rapid Reaction Force Asset
04 Sep 2014 Sam LaGrone

"...NATO’s Military Assets
It wouldn’t be the first time NATO purchased and operated its own military assets.

“There would be a precedent for joint ownership of NATO maritime and even air assets. NATO has operated the research ship NRV Alliance as well as the oceanographic tender CRV Leonardo,” Wertheim said. “NATO also operates a fleet of E-3 airborne early warning and control (AWACS) aircraft as well as a force of C-17 cargo aircraft operated by multi-national NATO crewmembers.”

The U.S. Navy also experimented with mixed multi-national NATO crews to some success in the 1960s.

The inclusion of the Mistrals into the NATO arsenal opens up a range of possibilities for the reaction force.

The Russian Mistrals — Vladivostok and Sevastopol — have been modified to carry heavier Russian helicopters and are optimized for Arctic operations, allowing a rare cold weather operating capability for NATO. Most Western ships are optimized to work in tropical climates.

The ships could also serve as a logistics sea base for expeditionary forces from NATO without creating a large terrestrial footprint — much like U.S. Navy and Marine Amphibious Ready Groups and Marine Expeditionary Units. (ARG/MEU)...."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2014/09/04/stavrid ... #more-9093


Oh my.
That would certainly turn the situation on it's head wouldn't it? Just add money.

Seems like everyone would come out of the current bind a Winner wouldn't they? -- except for Russia.
This customer switch would however place moderate Russian leaders in an even worse spot than they are now, since it would tend to prove the extremist's theory (Everyone Is Out To Get Us) that is driving domestic and regional policy for the last 15 years. Putin has now placed himself in the classic Dictator's Dilemma - You can't stay in power without an unbroken string of conquests. If this were to happen he would HAVE to respond in a way that he could sell as a victory.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2014, 06:36
by Corsair1963
Interesting idea and similar projects have be discussed from time to time within NATO. Would sure stick it to Russia! Plus, the cost of the Mistrals would be spread across NATO. Thereby taking the pressure off France.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2014, 04:43
by spazsinbad
Should this be a worry or just a wind up?

“...It is unknown if the J-31 is meant to be a competitor to the J-20 stealth fighter or a complement to it. It is also unknown if it will be a land-based fighter for the People's Liberation Army Air Force, or a carrier-based fighter for the People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force on the Liaoning Aircraft Carrier and future Chinese carriers. The J-31's chief designer, Sun Cong, has said that he hoped that the aircraft would follow his J-15 onto China's aircraft carriers....” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-31


NEW CHALLENGER to us Air Force F-22 China's J-31 stealth fighter aircraft 18 May 2014
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBZiSVGA ... page#t=249

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2014, 05:22
by popcorn
I can't recall whether it was Gen. Hostage or Carlisle who, when asked of his opinion about the J-20, described it as having a "shapeish" appearance associated with a 5Gen design which was all be appeared willing to concede. He didn't seem foo impressed otherwise. Until more substantial evidence surfaces in the coming years to warrant concern then ...don't worry, be happy.
:D

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2014, 04:28
by lookieloo
http://news.usni.org/2014/09/29/japans- ... -takes-sea

...Izumo is large enough to field 14 helicopters and has the capacity to carry 400 troops. Japan could also field V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft from the ship. Ospreys are used by U.S. Marines to deploy troops from the sea and were successfully test onboard Japan’s Hyuga-class DDHs in 2013.

It’s conceivable the helicopter carrier could also accommodate the short takeoff/ vertical landing (STOVL) variants of the F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) but Japan has said publically it has no intentions of fielding JSFs from the ships...
Another potential Bee platform hits sea-trials. It looks like they're sticking with the 14 helo capability as their story, even though other flat-tops in this weight-class typically carry over 20 aircraft total (Cavour, the closest analog, can carry up the 30). If this thing is really only able to operate 14 birds, then I'd say prospects for embarking the F-35B are dismal unless the Japanese are lying. If they are indeed lying, then I'd say the F-35B is a lock because I can't really think of another good reason for them to mislead on carrying capacity.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2014, 06:07
by Corsair1963
lookieloo wrote:
http://news.usni.org/2014/09/29/japans- ... -takes-sea

...Izumo is large enough to field 14 helicopters and has the capacity to carry 400 troops. Japan could also field V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft from the ship. Ospreys are used by U.S. Marines to deploy troops from the sea and were successfully test onboard Japan’s Hyuga-class DDHs in 2013.

It’s conceivable the helicopter carrier could also accommodate the short takeoff/ vertical landing (STOVL) variants of the F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) but Japan has said publically it has no intentions of fielding JSFs from the ships...
Another potential Bee platform hits sea-trials. It looks like they're sticking with the 14 helo capability as their story, even though other flat-tops in this weight-class typically carry over 20 aircraft total (Cavour, the closest analog, can carry up the 30). If this thing is really only able to operate 14 birds, then I'd say prospects for embarking the F-35B are dismal unless the Japanese are lying. If they are indeed lying, then I'd say the F-35B is a lock because I can't really think of another good reason for them to mislead on carrying capacity.



If, the J-31 is indeed planned and developed as a Naval Fighter to operate from Chinese Aircraft Carriers. I have little doubt that Japan will acquire F-35B's to operate for the Izumo Class as a counter. Just my personal opinion. :wink:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2015, 01:45
by spazsinbad
Back on page 29 of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20426&p=274020&hilit=hang#p274020 'KamenRiderBlade' enquired about 'hanging with the F-35B'. Photo below is repeated on the 'USMC Aviation Plan 2015' thread also but worthwhile to see the overlyhung F-35B here aboard USS Wasp and a lift during DT-II in late 2013:
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/ima ... 00x467.jpg
(Simon M Bruty/Any Chance Productions/Getty Images)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2015, 21:17
by spazsinbad
PLA to build amphibious assault ships: report
25 Jan 2015 (By Stanley Cheung and Ted Chen)

"Taipei, Jan. 25 (CNA) Hong Kong's Ming Pao (明報) newspaper reported on Friday that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is building large amphibious assault ships to bolster gaps in its naval strategic doctrine.

Written by Liang Kuo-liang (梁國樑),...

...In response, China's dockyards are scrambling to build its own home-grown amphibious assault craft, with a displacement of 50,000 long tons, said the report, and the Shanghai Jiangnan-Changxing Shipbuilding Company Limited (上海江南長興造船廠) has been commissioned to build at least four amphibious assault ships.

The report also implied that the PLA Air Force is developing a variant of the J-10 fighter jet, equipped with vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capabilities.

Of note, diagrams released by Xinhuanet (新華網) revealed a design for China's amphibious assault vessel that stands 265 meters in length and is capable of launching jet fighters, helicopters, and LCACs."

Source: http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201501250010.aspx

Re:

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 20:57
by KamenRiderBlade
madrat wrote:This is a cartoon-ish representation of how I thought exterior launching could work.
Image


I wonder if your Gravity Assisted Ski Jump Ramp could be applied to land usage as a alternative hidden launch point.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 21:37
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: The Swiss have mountain lairs/caves for some of their fighters, so I reckon they should have the 'cool running'. OMG they could disguise their launch points with REAL ski jumps - the long drop would be a bit hairy but save on fuel. :devil: No? :doh:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 21:40
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote::mrgreen: The Swiss have mountain lairs/caves for some of their fighters, so I reckon they should have the 'cool running'. OMG they could disguise their launch points with REAL ski jumps - the long drop would be a bit hairy but save on fuel. :devil: No? :doh:


You got to admit, the concept of shortening launch distances via either "Ski Jump Ramp" or "Gravity Assisted Ski Jump Ramp" on land could open up many more runway options

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 21:42
by spazsinbad
Build them and they will come.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 21:59
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote:Build them and they will come.


If the USAF ever decide to get funding for continued ramp building / testing, it'll be a very interesting day when they continue the mobile land ramp options.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2015, 08:18
by lookieloo
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/world ... .html?_r=0
...Last year, Japan launched its largest warship since World War II, the Izumo, a small aircraft carrier capable of carrying vertical-takeoff jets. The Izumo is part of a more mobile military that Japan is building to defend its far-flung islands to the south, including the contested ones — with or without the United States, if necessary...


That's the only mention of the topic at hand in this article... interesting that the NYT took notice without clarifying that the ship in question is "supposedly" only for helicopters.

Recent indications are that the Japanese flattops are intended for use as officially stated... as in anti-submarine ops. This isn't to say that they will never embark F-35Bs; rather we should think of these vessels as a modern take on CVS carriers. I expect that "Bees" flying off these ships will used rather differently than they would be off of American or Australian LHD/LHA platforms; less power-projection and more fleet-defense (spaz knows all about this type of operation).

This still leaves difficult questions as to whether it would work as well now as it did when repurposed WWII carriers charged around with decks full of S-2s and a few A-4s. Anti-ship weapons (both submarine and aircraft launched) have improved by some margin since then; and the F-35B, while certainly an improvement over the Harrier, isn't exactly long-legged. My summation is that embarking JSF on the Izumo-class isn't really worth the trouble from a strictly tactical standpoint. However, such practical concerns often ignore the strategic value that comes with the prestige of operating a carrier with fixed-wing aircraft. Even if it never embarks more than a half-dozen fighters, the Chinese will still $hit a brick if Japan purchases F-35Bs, a move that would show resolve to allies as well.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2015, 09:11
by spazsinbad
'lookiloo[' said: "... Even if it never embarks more than a half-dozen fighters..." Not a number to be sneezed at in the opinion of the USMC or in practice back in oldentymes with four A4Gs onboard MELBOURNE. USMC Head Honcho said this:
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOSEPH DUNFORD COMMANDANT UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
26 FEB 2015

"...Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) [F-35B/C] pp14-16
...The JSF brings a new capability to the battalion sized forces that sail with our Marine Expeditionary Units. Today, there are a multitude of high risk regions where a crisis response operation would require large Joint strike packages to soften or blind the threat. These packages would have to include cruise missiles, fighter aircraft, electronic warfare platforms, aircraft which specialize in suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses, and strike aircraft - just for U.S. forces to gain access. Such strike packages require coordination across services and combatant commands and take weeks and months to assemble. This same kind of access can be attained with a single detachment of 4 to 8 F-35s - the same sized detachment which will reside with a Marine Expeditionary Unit. For major contingencies, a surge of F-35Bs to our amphibious carrier decks and forward austere bases enables even greater options and striking power. The F-35 provides a transformational capability to the Marine Corps and the Joint Force...."

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document_downloa ... ension=pdf (140Kb)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2015, 19:12
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:'lookiloo[' said: "... Even if it never embarks more than a half-dozen fighters..." Not a number to be sneezed at in the opinion of the USMC or in practice back in oldentymes with four A4Gs onboard MELBOURNE. USMC Head Honcho said this:
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOSEPH DUNFORD COMMANDANT UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
26 FEB 2015

"...Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) [F-35B/C] pp14-16
...The JSF brings a new capability to the battalion sized forces that sail with our Marine Expeditionary Units. Today, there are a multitude of high risk regions where a crisis response operation would require large Joint strike packages to soften or blind the threat. These packages would have to include cruise missiles, fighter aircraft, electronic warfare platforms, aircraft which specialize in suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses, and strike aircraft - just for U.S. forces to gain access. Such strike packages require coordination across services and combatant commands and take weeks and months to assemble. This same kind of access can be attained with a single detachment of 4 to 8 F-35s - the same sized detachment which will reside with a Marine Expeditionary Unit. For major contingencies, a surge of F-35Bs to our amphibious carrier decks and forward austere bases enables even greater options and striking power. The F-35 provides a transformational capability to the Marine Corps and the Joint Force...."

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document_downloa ... ension=pdf (140Kb)
I'm of two minds on all that. On the one hand, I don't see how ~6 F-35Bs would make all that much difference in any war, near-peer or otherwise. On the other, it's clear that the Bee can bring an outsized contribution to any naval task-group if used correctly. Maybe we should think small JSF detachments on small carriers as a possible "asymmetric" advantage for smaller Asian navies facing-off with the PLAN.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2015, 22:04
by spazsinbad
Our RAN was not considering facing off with anyone except the locals in our area in that era. In this era no one except perhaps the USofA is considering going it alone - toe to toe - with China. However those Asian Countries resisting China, along with less local allies, including the USofA, will be in a coalition opposing China most likely pooling their resources. That is the whole idea of the same same F-35s interoperable with others. No? Or am I missing something? Having good assets available for DEFENCE makes any attack that much more problematic. Put those DEFENCE assets into a broad coalition makes that coalition DEFENCE even more formidable - and it helps that lot - USofA - across the Pacific.

Please - no one comes close to having flat decks of the capacity of the USN. However having SOMETHING rather than NOTHING is probably better. Or again: am I missing something?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 02:23
by weasel1962
A big threat is to SLOCs which is normally from sea, sub-sea and air.

Sea
6 x F-35Bs can make a pretty dent to any sea threats even those with decent SAM cover without exposing the escorting fleet or surface fleet to surface ASMs. Helos can do the same but normally the area of ops is closer to the fleet = fleet detection. Ultimately, the F-35Bs can provide better EMCON to the fleet.

Sub-sea
The F-35Bs can't do ASW. However, they can provide air cover to the ASW helo assets that do. This will allow the helo assets to operate further out with less counter air risk i.e. better ASW coverage.

Air
This is the biggest value add. They can whack MPAs before the MPAs can detect the fleet, something surface vessels can't do. Even if AAW DDGs have the range to hit MPAs at extreme ranges, ID-ing the aircraft as aggressor can be difficult and increases the risk of hitting civilian aircraft. No issue for F-35Bs which can detect and ID the aircraft much further out.

and even if detected, 6 x F-35Bs will provide a first line of defence against aggressor aircraft. Even thinning the herd could mean the difference between fleet SAMs being able to handle the raid or not. Most potential aggressors operate at sqn or regt size so 6 x 4-8 AIM-120s (total 24-48 AAMs) is not that insignificant a number.

6 x F-35Bs can even interdict airbases e.g. in South China sea which won't house that many aircraft.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 03:14
by spazsinbad
Where you bin 'weasel1962'? To the old era of Fleet Defence this was the most usual task - before the Badgers came out with their Kennels.
"...Air: This is the biggest value add. They can whack MPAs before the MPAs can detect the fleet..."

STOP the Badgers from getting airborne was a good strategy (before satellites). Then there was talk of helping the somewhat very limited (delivery accuracy wise) S2s if they detected a sub whilst perhaps damaging in then A4Gs could hurtle out there to deliver some more weapons [just as inaccurately :-) maybe ]. Anyhow - ALL GOOD STUFF! :mrgreen:

VF-805 Line Book Entry from 1979 Exercise Kangaroo 3 shows the value put on getting the 'shadower' (RAAF P3) which would most often be just that much 'out of range by the time anyone could get near' (but it all depends on many factors). [I'll guess AIC PO Thorpe refers to Air Intercept Controller? A lot of RAN designations changed after I left the RAN.]

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 07:02
by weasel1962
Not many countries have access to real-time satellite vessel tracking (unless one is referring to AIS). Does Australia have that capability? I would think countries like Indonesia have very minimal sat capability and still rely on MPAs / surface radars to track movement in their waters.

P-3s might see a legacy fighter coming from hundreds of miles away and maintain range distance but how far out will they see a stealth fighter?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 07:21
by spazsinbad
My reference was to 1979 time frame and immediately before in that decade as an example of how fleet defence works. However Australia has bought a share recently in a primarily US satellite network (along with UK if I remember correctly). Links to this info can be provided. In our ADF we are upgrading to Networking in a big way with WedgeTails and soon to be P-8s and Tritons and stuff like that with Growlers and Super Hornets (whilst Hornets are making way for the F-35As). Is this what you are referring to with AIS? Always helps to spell out these acronyms for us oldies long out of the game. http://www.raafais.gov.au/ Is this what you mean? AIS = Aeronautical Information Service

Back in 1979 P-3s for ORANGE force (enemy) were replicating what an enemy MPA might do. Don't ask me what that may have been. Whilst often real aircraft are asked to behave stupidly or at less than optimum performance to replicate the threat - in exercises - so any exercise has that 'flaw' so to speak. Today things are very different. Australia has Jindalee wide area radar amongst other assets including submarines getting intel.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 08:09
by weasel1962
AIS = automatic identification system.

Good for Australia that they get a sat pic. However, the benefit of the F-35 in the context of the earlier questions were not against US or Australia as an adversary but against potential aggressors of F-35 users which generally don't have access to the kind of sat networks that the US have. Even in the case of China, the use of sats and the extent of that capability as part of their OODA loop is still very much in question.

I have no doubts about Jindalee's capability to detect vessels since that is what its designed to do. But to classify or ID vessels thousands of kilometers away is another question. Ultimately, isn't vessel classification/ID that what an MPA is also procured to do? Otherwise those badgers could end up targeting a neutral tanker instead.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 08:39
by spazsinbad
Not sure know if you have two time frames mixed up. From the mid 1960s when Indonesia was 'confronting' neighbours the RAN sourced A4Gs amongst other new assets to be onboard HMAS Melbourne; which otherwise was going to become an ASW HELO only carrier [getting rid of the Gannets and Sea Venoms]. When the Badgers came on the scene soon after, armed with Kennel and other missiles, the RAN needed some Fleet Defence - the A4G was the ONLY aircraft that fitted the ship. However since the early 1980s there has been no aircraft carrier, nor large flat deck in RAN service. The two new LHDs will be a welcome addition to RAN / ADF capability, along with all the new assets mentioned. In the early 1970s I do not believe a lot of things taken for granted today were even thought about at all.

Jindalee (whatever the shortcomings perceived) will be part of the system of systems being developed today by the ADF - PLAN Jericho is one RAAF response to the future paradigm.
“In the summer of 1961, twenty TU-16KS [Badgers] were sold to Indonesia.”
&
Badger-B - Tu-16KS -- Badger B is equipped with two Kennel air-to-surface missiles suspended beneath the wings. The TU-16KS began initial tests in August 1954. It carried two KS-1 Kometa air-to-surface missiles with a range of 90 km, and had an operational range of 1800 km. The Kobalt-N guidance transmitter was installed, though the glazed 'bomber' nose was retained. The aircraft subsequently served in the Soviet Naval AF [AV-MF] & Indonesian AF:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-16.htm

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 10:30
by weasel1962
The last sentence was merely an afterthought (with respect to Chinese badgers). In the case of Indonesia, you can replace badger with any Indonesia strike aircraft in their arsenal today and the same applies to a discussion over the benefits of the F-35B which isn't in the RAAF/RAN arsenal today but could be.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 02:57
by lookieloo
It's finally here...

Image

DDH-183 IZUMO commissioned today by the JMSDF

http://news.usni.org/2015/03/25/japan-c ... rld-war-ii

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... uise-12483

As usual, speculation flies about how it's a CV in disguise... I do hope that is indeed the case as it seems a shame for such a beautiful, fast ship to carry only helicopters.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 02:59
by KamenRiderBlade
Why did they mount the forward CIWS on top of the flight deck?

That seems like an odd design choice.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 03:04
by spazsinbad
I'm only guessing: mounted higher the weapon sees the horizon further out and has more of a chance to connect with target as soon as?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 03:55
by lookieloo
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Why did they mount the forward CIWS on top of the flight deck?

That seems like an odd design choice.
Seems as good a place as any for now... one of four CIWS on this class BTW (2xPhalanx and 2xSeaRAM). I'm guessing they could remove it should the need arise without compromising too much protection. Interesting to note that the preceding, much-smaller Hyūga-class ships possess far heavier organic armament... another indication that Izumo's "DDH" designation may be obfuscatory.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 08:50
by spazsinbad
IF the claim highlighted WAS TRUE then why not JUST BUILD a MORE SUITABLE FLAT Deck for the F-35B? Buehler? Anyone?
China is right to be alarmed by Japan's new 'helicopter destroyer'
07 Apr 2015 Kyle Mizokami THE WEAK

"Two weeks ago, Japan commissioned its largest naval vessel since the end of World War II. Sleek and with the clean lines of a ship designed for stealth, JS Izumo pulled into Yokosuka Naval Base, her new home port, and officially joined the Maritime Self Defense Force....

...What alarms some of Japan's neighbors — China in particular — is that the ships are also capable of carrying the American Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35B, designed to take off and land vertically for the U.S. Marine Corps, is an ideal fit for the Izumo class. Izumos could likely embark up to eight or nine of the stealthy, fifth generation strike fighters....

...Modifying the Izumo to make it a true aircraft carrier is a decision that won't be taken lightly. It will be expensive: In addition to the cost of procuring up to a dozen fighters (the per-unit price of an F-35B is currently a whopping $116 million), her flight deck will need to be strengthened to cope with the massive amounts of heat the F-35B generates during takeoffs and landings. The cost could end up being near two billion dollars — as much as the ship itself...."

Source: http://theweek.com/articles/548082/chin ... -destroyer

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 18:04
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote:IF the claim highlighted WAS TRUE then why not JUST BUILD a MORE SUITABLE FLAT Deck for the F-35B? Buehler? Anyone?
China is right to be alarmed by Japan's new 'helicopter destroyer'
07 Apr 2015 Kyle Mizokami THE WEAK

"Two weeks ago, Japan commissioned its largest naval vessel since the end of World War II. Sleek and with the clean lines of a ship designed for stealth, JS Izumo pulled into Yokosuka Naval Base, her new home port, and officially joined the Maritime Self Defense Force....

...What alarms some of Japan's neighbors — China in particular — is that the ships are also capable of carrying the American Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35B, designed to take off and land vertically for the U.S. Marine Corps, is an ideal fit for the Izumo class. Izumos could likely embark up to eight or nine of the stealthy, fifth generation strike fighters....

...Modifying the Izumo to make it a true aircraft carrier is a decision that won't be taken lightly. It will be expensive: In addition to the cost of procuring up to a dozen fighters (the per-unit price of an F-35B is currently a whopping $116 million), her flight deck will need to be strengthened to cope with the massive amounts of heat the F-35B generates during takeoffs and landings. The cost could end up being near two billion dollars — as much as the ship itself...."

Source: http://theweek.com/articles/548082/chin ... -destroyer


That's what puzzles me, why not built it ready to accept the F-35 from the beginning.

Building the ship, then modifying sounds like a dumb round about plan.

Unless somebody is getting bribed in the Japanese Defense ministry to spend extra money.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 20:15
by newmanfrigan
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:IF the claim highlighted WAS TRUE then why not JUST BUILD a MORE SUITABLE FLAT Deck for the F-35B? Buehler? Anyone?
China is right to be alarmed by Japan's new 'helicopter destroyer'
07 Apr 2015 Kyle Mizokami THE WEAK

"Two weeks ago, Japan commissioned its largest naval vessel since the end of World War II. Sleek and with the clean lines of a ship designed for stealth, JS Izumo pulled into Yokosuka Naval Base, her new home port, and officially joined the Maritime Self Defense Force....

...What alarms some of Japan's neighbors — China in particular — is that the ships are also capable of carrying the American Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35B, designed to take off and land vertically for the U.S. Marine Corps, is an ideal fit for the Izumo class. Izumos could likely embark up to eight or nine of the stealthy, fifth generation strike fighters....

...Modifying the Izumo to make it a true aircraft carrier is a decision that won't be taken lightly. It will be expensive: In addition to the cost of procuring up to a dozen fighters (the per-unit price of an F-35B is currently a whopping $116 million), her flight deck will need to be strengthened to cope with the massive amounts of heat the F-35B generates during takeoffs and landings. The cost could end up being near two billion dollars — as much as the ship itself...."

Source: http://theweek.com/articles/548082/chin ... -destroyer


That's what puzzles me, why not built it ready to accept the F-35 from the beginning.

Building the ship, then modifying sounds like a dumb round about plan.

Unless somebody is getting bribed in the Japanese Defense ministry to spend extra money.



Well, I wouldn't take the authors word for it. I highly, highly doubt the cost of modifying the decks will be, "as much as the ship itself". That sounds extremely hyperbolic and I doubt the fixes would be so severe. It's more likely that the Japanese prefer to keep their cards to themselves and also prefer to not unnecessarily alarm the Chinese.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 20:39
by mrigdon
newmanfrigan wrote:

Well, I wouldn't take the authors word for it. I highly, highly doubt the cost of modifying the decks will be, "as much as the ship itself". That sounds extremely hyperbolic and I doubt the fixes would be so severe. It's more likely that the Japanese prefer to keep their cards to themselves and also prefer to not unnecessarily alarm the Chinese.


There's also Article 9 of the Japanese constitution to consider. For the time being, that's a bigger impediment than Chinese opinion. I'm not sure the Japanese could legally field fixed wing aircraft on a carrier. It's possible, in light of that, that the Japanese didn't design the Izumo to handle the F-35B (or even the Osprey). After all, why spend the money if your own constitution precludes the use of such planes?

The F-35A should have enough range to reach any area that Japan needs to defend. The F-35A should be able to provide air cover from land bases in any of the circumstances where the Izumo is engaging in ASW operations under the Japanese flag. If the Izumo joins an international task force, then there will be U.S. assets providing the same. In the case of disaster relief, fixed wing assets are unnecessary.

An expeditionary force just isn't in the cards. If the Izumo does exactly what they say, provide ASW and disaster support, then maybe after twenty years or so of being a good neighbor, the Japanese might be able to repeal Article 9. At that point, they'd probably want to build a true carrier from scratch that could field fixed-wing assets. The F-35B should still be available in twenty years, right? The same plant is building the same airframe. It'll still be around. And Rolls Royce will still be building engines for spares for the Marines and others.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 10:02
by lookieloo
Most likely, the Izumo represents a "breakout capability" for Japan should the Chinese attempt to lord carrier aviation over them. If J-15s start buzzing Japanese ships/islands, you can bet good money that an F-35B order will follow, perhaps even expedited in the form of aircraft transferred directly from the USMC.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 12:44
by popcorn
I remain skeptical that Japan will get back into the carrier game. Land-based air power can cover Japanese territory more cost-effectively. The Japanese and US Navies will focus on complementing each other's capabilities rather than duplicating them. There was some talk about shuffling a dispersed F-35B force among small bases closer to any contested territories which would complicate targeting for a potential foe.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 18:24
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:...Land-based air power can cover Japanese territory more cost-effectively...
Completely agree. In a shooting war over there, land-based aircraft and submarines would be what matter. However, in this non-shooting conflict, face and the saving thereof is everything. Carriers are highly-visible representations of purpose/resolve, and Japan may soon find itself unable to be seen without one.


That said, whether the Japanese order Bees will be completely dependant on Chinese behavior.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 20:38
by mrigdon
lookieloo wrote:However, in this non-shooting conflict, face and the saving thereof is everything. Carriers are highly-visible representations of purpose/resolve, and Japan may soon find itself unable to be seen without one.


That said, whether the Japanese order Bees will be completely dependant on Chinese behavior.



Again, the Japanese constitution has an article that bans armed forces with war potential. Some in Japan have advocated repealing that amendment. The U.S. has supported doing that, to let Japan take over more responsibility in the Pacific, but it's worth noting that China is opposed (natch) and so is South Korea. It's a little more complicated than just saying the Chinese will cross some line and suddenly F-35Bs! Unless that line is actual war. There are still Japanese who take Article 9 seriously.

The South Koreans are as opposed to a Japanese carrier force as the Chinese are. There are still plenty of Koreans who remember the atrocities committed by Japan in World War 2. It's why they've decided to fly their F-35s all the way to Australia rather than have them serviced next door in Japan. They would rather keep an airframe out of service for an additional week or more (and be that much more vulnerable to attack by North Korea or China) then send that plane to Japan.

Granted, the U.S. and Japan could just tell South Korea to go screw themselves, but we'd be doing more damage to our Pacific strategy than we'd gain by having a single Japanese carrier and six F-35Bs in the Pacific.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 20:52
by neptune
[quote="mrigdon] ...has an article that bans armed forces with war potential. ...[/quote]

"The government shall acquire 42 units of the F-35A after fiscal 2012 in order to replenish and to modernize the current fleet of fighters held by the Air Self-Defense Force", the Japanese government today confirmed, in a statement. ??

...and the F-35B is......??

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2015, 22:01
by mrigdon
neptune wrote:[quote="mrigdon] ...has an article that bans armed forces with war potential. ...[/quote]

"The government shall acquire 42 units of the F-35A after fiscal 2012 in order to replenish and to modernize the current fleet of fighters held by the Air Self-Defense Force", the Japanese government today confirmed, in a statement. ??

...and the F-35B is......??[/quote][/quote][/quote]


Politics is about perception.

An F-35A launching from a land base is more effective than an F-35B at sea on a pocket carrier in the area around Japan. However, planes on carriers are inherently expeditionary. No one buys a carrier with fixed wing assets for defense. It's too expensive, for one. So long as Japan was buying jets for "self-defense", South Korea doesn't have any public outcry. But as soon as Japan were to put planes on a carrier, no matter the reality of how much less effective those planes are then the ones on land, there would be hell to pay in South Korea from the public.

There are still people alive and voting in South Korea who lived through Japanese rule aren't too keen to see an ascendant Japan. There's a reason the Japanese are calling the Izumo a "helicopter destroyer". It isn't because they thought the name would be cute.

And this doesn't even begin to consider the fact that the majority of the Japanese public supports Article 9 and isn't on board with Japan increasing its military capabilities.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 07:50
by lookieloo
mrigdon wrote:...Again, the Japanese constitution has an article that bans armed forces with war potential...
You seem to be hung-up on this for some reason. In case you haven't heard, the Japanese constitution has already undergone some recent changes loosening that restriction. All constitutions subject to alteration due to changing circumstance, and Japan's is no exception. As WWII fades from living memory, such legal pedantics will increasingly be ignored.


You also need to get over the idea that carriers are purely offensive weapons. The Izumo is mainly a sea-control asset, and so it will remain whether JSF is embarked or not.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 17:23
by spazsinbad
Anotherie launched as KAGA and NO F-35B plans whatsoever (mebbe V-22s but)....
Japan Launches Latest Helicopter Carrier
27 Aug 2015 Sam LaGrone

"Japan has launched the second in its new class of helicopter carrier — the largest Japanese ships since World War II — in a Thursday ceremony in Yokohama.

The 24,000-ton Kaga (DDH-184)... follows JS Izumo (DDH-183) which entered service in the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) in March....

...There is a potential for the two ships to also American MV-22s and potentially the short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). However, the Japanese say they have no plans to operate the JSF from either ship...."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/08/27/japan-l ... er-carrier

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 17:38
by joost
Kaga was the name of the first carrier struck during the battle of Midway!

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 21:47
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:Anotherie launched as KAGA and NO F-35B plans whatsoever (mebbe V-22s but)....
Japan Launches Latest Helicopter Carrier
27 Aug 2015 Sam LaGrone

"Japan has launched the second in its new class of helicopter carrier — the largest Japanese ships since World War II — in a Thursday ceremony in Yokohama.

The 24,000-ton Kaga (DDH-184)... follows JS Izumo (DDH-183) which entered service in the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) in March....

...There is a potential for the two ships to also American MV-22s and potentially the short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). However, the Japanese say they have no plans to operate the JSF from either ship...."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/08/27/japan-l ... er-carrier



I'm interested in their next class. They've been eyeing the Wasp class for sometime now.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2015, 15:03
by lookieloo
sferrin wrote:I'm interested in their next class...
Maybe we can sell them the KITTY HAWK for conversion to use as a "casino hotel." :wink:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2015, 19:40
by lookieloo
A hint perhaps? Probably not... but some nice footage of Izumo and Reagan sailing together.


Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 02:42
by spazsinbad
SHIRLEY this chap is exaggerating - for effect - which is silly really, for example a recent Chinese crash report was false. Mebbe - if true - another reason to go STOVL - F-35B - for those no longer in the game but wanna go back. <sigh>
‘Indian Machiavelli’ Urges Confronting China[/b]
12 Nov 2015 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...True, the Chinese navy already has an aircraft carrier, he said, “but you know having a boat is not enough. You have to be able to integrate a carrier into fleet operations. That takes a long time. It took the Indian navy about 30 years.”

“As far as I know, no combat aircraft has actually flown off a sailing carrier, a Chinese carrier,” Karnad said. To the contrary, he said, Chinese pilots are still crashing regularly when they try to land on a simulated carrier deck ashore — something much shorter than a conventional runway but still far more manageable than the rolling, pitching deck of a ship....

...Overall, the gleefully provocative Karnad got a lot of nervous laughter at Carnegie, with his American fellow-panelists smiling and wincing by turns. It was a fascinating view inside the mind of a leading Indian hawk...

...It should base nuclear-missile submarines in Australia, if the Aussies could be trusted not to share too much intel on the subs with the United States...." [YEP JOKER INDEED]

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/11/indi ... ing-china/

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 03:21
by Dragon029
I would trust us (Australia) with not sharing new Indian nuclear sub secrets with the US as much as I would trust North Korea with not sharing new US nuclear sub secrets with China if they were given the opportunity.

I was once in a Q&A with (ret) General Hurley, (ex-Chief of the Defence Force), when a junior service member asked him about Australia's relations with China, and whether we might be best off siding with them due to our geographic location. The General paused, then said something along the lines of (again, this is paraphrasing, but the latter half is word-for-word as far as I recall) "Relations with China are important and will only continue to become more important into the future, but do not be mistaken; we have many friends, but only one true ally, the United States."

When he said that, he said it in a very serious tone (possibly because there were SEA personnel in the room as well); my memory is a bit fuzzy about what he said directly afterwards, but he might have then made the point that even the UK was a "friend" vs "ally" in comparison with the US (or that might have been me inferring while he said something else).

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 14:42
by KamenRiderBlade
Dragon029 wrote:I would trust us (Australia) with not sharing new Indian nuclear sub secrets with the US as much as I would trust North Korea with not sharing new US nuclear sub secrets with China if they were given the opportunity.

I was once in a Q&A with (ret) General Hurley, (ex-Chief of the Defence Force), when a junior service member asked him about Australia's relations with China, and whether we might be best off siding with them due to our geographic location. The General paused, then said something along the lines of (again, this is paraphrasing, but the latter half is word-for-word as far as I recall) "Relations with China are important and will only continue to become more important into the future, but do not be mistaken; we have many friends, but only one true ally, the United States."

When he said that, he said it in a very serious tone (possibly because there were SEA personnel in the room as well); my memory is a bit fuzzy about what he said directly afterwards, but he might have then made the point that even the UK was a "friend" vs "ally" in comparison with the US (or that might have been me inferring while he said something else).


So does he mean that at the end of the day, the US can only rely on itself?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 15:44
by spazsinbad
'KMR' shirely you are not serious? Oz has only one ally according to HURLEY - otherwise they OZ have only friends - with the UK NOW being one of them. So who is Oz ally? OR are you still not sure? [ally = a state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose]

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 16:27
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote:'KMR' shirely you are not serious? Oz has only one ally according to HURLEY - otherwise they OZ have only friends - with the UK NOW being one of them. So who is Oz ally? OR are you still not sure? [ally = a state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose]

I'm just trying to interpret what the official is saying.

I personally believe the US has many allies. That being said all of the natural English speaking countries (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) are amongst the closest of US allies.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 16:59
by spazsinbad
Yes I understood that however HURLEY is AUSTRALIAN so he was saying from his viewpoint. It will take a long time for some Australians to get over the UK abandoning Oz during WWII for whatever reason on both sides. Personally I see the merit in having the US as Oz main ally which does not go down well with the forelock tuggers to old Brit tradition holders.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 17:37
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Yes I understood .. It will take a long time for some Australians to get over the UK abandoning Oz during WWII for whatever reason on both sides. Personally I see the merit in having the US as Oz main ally; which does not go down well with the forelock tippers to old Brit tradition holders.


Agreed, the Aussies and the Yanks are bound by a common goal of mutual defense and maritime economies. The bit of distance between us has now become advantageous for the US. Australia has hosted our Navy, Marines and Air Force at their bases (US Army??). The maritime trade routes in the area of Australia are vital to the health of the US economy and must be protected with the cooperation of Australia. It is unimaginable for the US not to support the economic and military needs of Australia. :)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 21:13
by XanderCrews
neptune wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Yes I understood .. It will take a long time for some Australians to get over the UK abandoning Oz during WWII for whatever reason on both sides. Personally I see the merit in having the US as Oz main ally; which does not go down well with the forelock tippers to old Brit tradition holders.


Agreed, the Aussies and the Yanks are bound by a common goal of mutual defense and maritime economies. The bit of distance between us has now become advantageous for the US. Australia has hosted our Navy, Marines and Air Force at their bases (US Army??). The maritime trade routes in the area of Australia are vital to the health of the US economy and must be protected with the cooperation of Australia. It is unimaginable for the US not to support the economic and military needs of Australia. :)


Image

Would pick Aus over just about any other Pacific duty station.I knew there would be no shortage of Marines who wanted to be there.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 21:19
by tritonprime
spazsinbad wrote:SHIRLEY this chap is exaggerating - for effect - which is silly really, for example a recent Chinese crash report was false. Mebbe - if true - another reason to go STOVL - F-35B - for those no longer in the game but wanna go back. <sigh>


Are you referring to Japan? Oz?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 22:51
by spazsinbad
I'm referring to anyone - everyone - BUEHLER - any one who wants to get back or into the Naval Aviation game. Then STOP & LAND is the easiest way to get there; which I hope one realises does away with the perils of LAND then STOP - mebbe. This is the canard - most likely however - from MR.KANARD 'isselflike.
"...Chinese pilots are still crashing regularly when they try to land on a simulated carrier deck ashore — something much shorter than a conventional runway but still far more manageable than the rolling, pitching deck of a ship...."

Yes the MagiiCarPort should do nicely to help crash&dashers ashore and afloat - mebbe the Chinese will steal that for their NavAv efforts? Dunno. My point still stands.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 23:37
by tritonprime
Just checking if there was someone who was in the game and who wanted to come back. :wink:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2015, 00:09
by spazsinbad
Well a nice puzzle whilst perhaps the INDIANS from INDIA (not Indiana) may be in that thot bubble. They ponder at moment how to proceed with their new carriers afloat. They can STOBAR as their recent Ruskie/India carrier operation demonstrates OR they can emulate their old STOVL Harrier/SkiJump habits perhaps - apparently not likely I'll concede. But wait... maybe they'll be offered the F-35B/C to go one way or tuther? OR both - emulate USN/USMC? A puzzle indeed.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 05:02
by lookieloo
A bit old, but relevant to the conversations regarding Oz LHDs and the possibility of moving a second CVN to Japan in order to reduce strain on our overworked fleet. Carefully cherry-picking here...
...China knows that once the F-35B is operational, the list of strike-capable flat-tops in the Pacific will grow dramatically–in theory...

...A sudden proliferation of capable, fixed-wing ready handy-sized flattops complicates China’s targeting challenges. In conjunction, these ships, if armed with F-35Bs, may be able to relieve CVNs–either by helping reduce the CVN’s operational tempo or covering gaps elsewhere so CVNs can operate freely well out in the deep Pacific...

http://nextnavy.com/the-f-35b-gives-asi ... ers-teeth/
To my knowlege, American allies have been given very little encouragement along these lines, which strikes me as a huge missed oportunity given the USN's recent difficulties in keeping up with deployments. Convincing a few friends to develop their own sea-based TACAIR capability would be a cost-effective solution to the problem and add headaches for our adversaries at the same time. Unfortunately, this solution is needed now; and the Ozians seem hopeless. Perhaps giving Japan a nudge (or maybe a Bee discount) would produce better results; after all, the Izumo-class has more potential as a light-carrier anyways.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 05:14
by spazsinbad
I'm wondering why current USN problems have to be taken up by allies? I would suggest your fwit Congress throw more money at the USN to do what it needs to do and problem solved. Meanwhile allies will do what they need to do in the context of their individual situations and NOT for the sake of helping out the USN and your fwit Congressional twit/twats.

As for Australia - it seems the 2015 bog roll will now be some time in the 1st or 2nd Quarter 2016 so we may know more detail (including potential for F-35Bs on LHDs) next year. But how can we know until said 'white paper' released?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 05:30
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:I'm wondering why current USN problems have to be taken up by allies?...
What % of GDP do Oz and Japan spend on defense again?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 05:40
by spazsinbad
I don't worry about GDP figures concocted by third parties. What matters is how the money is spent and what can be afforded. How that occurs is up to the individual countries concerned - some more than others - apparently. How rubbery are those 'figures' anyways. AFAIK the UK will just get up to speed soon with their recent SDSR to attain that mythical NATO 2% and yet that website has them at 2.1% - I'm gasted & flabbered to be flabbergasted.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 07:18
by lookieloo
In the meantime, for anyone interested in on-topic posts, here are a couple of months-old pieces on what the Turks intend to do with a ship that's soooooo hard to modify for F-35B ops.
Turkish-German media Deutsch Tuerkische Zeitung is reporting that during the last meeting of the Turkish National Security Council (in presence of the Turkish President) the decision was made to built the future LHD (Turkish designation: LPD Project) as an aircraft carrier capable to deploy the F-35B, the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin built Joint Strike Fighter. The vessel should be delivered to the Turkish Navy by 2019...
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... -jets.html

...and a later piece with pretty pictures of models (no, not those kind of pictures). :mrgreen:
At IDEF 2015, the International Defence Industry Fair currently held in Istanbul, Turkey, local shipyard "Sedef Shipbuilding" is showcasing a model of the future Turkish Navy Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) with the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II jets on board. The same model is showcased on the Turkish Navy booth...

...Turkish Navy LHD Mission Profiles and Capabilities

The ship is to be designed for four mission profiles:
» Amphibious ops: Capable of transporting a marine infantry force to carry out landing and support operations.
» Force Projection: Transporting forces to a theatre of operations.
» Aircraft Carrier: A platform for carrier-based naval aircrafts, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection airborne vectors (Navy's Air Wing)
» Humanitarian air ops: MOOTW (Military Operations Other Than War), humanitarian assistance, evacuation of crisis area, hospital ship in areas affected by natural disaster, etc...
Image
Image
Image

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... -2015.html

...but wait, there's more.
...The exact plane and helicopter load is not published but Juan Carlos design has capacity for 11 medium class helicopters and up to 7 Harrier type planes. Nobody is talking it openly yet, but it is highly possible that the S/VTOL version of F-35 may be acquired in the future to be used on this ship. Turkey is a member of the F-35 alliance and wants to buy at least 100 planes of the land based version...
http://turkishnavy.net/2015/05/19/the-c ... en-signed/

Oh... and wasn't there a tiff on this thread earlier about calling it an aircraft carrier?
TURKEY SIGNS CONTRACT WITH NAVANTIA-SEDEF FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LIGHT AIRCRAFT CARRIER

After more than a year of negotiations, Turkey has signed a contract for the construction of a Landing Platform Dock/Light Aircraft Carrier. The contract was signed between the Undersecretary of Defense Industries (SSM) and the Turkish shipbuilding company Sedef.

The new vessel is going to be a version of the Landing Helicopter Dock Juan Carlos I class, with a sky jump ramp and a front lift so that the Turkish ship can accommodate and operate F-35B Lighting II aircrafts.

The selection of the Spanish design was announced on 27 December 2013, while the main contractor is the Turkish shipyard Sedef. Although the Turkish Navy initially wanted a stripped down version of the Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) Juan Carlos I class, second thoughts led to a change of plans and the new version of the LHD will be able to carry 8-10 F-35B and 12 helicopters...
http://blogs.plymouth.ac.uk/dcss/2015/0 ... t-carrier/
There seems to be some confusion on the delivery-date (2019 or 2021), but orders will have to be made soon if they plan to go operational with F-35Bs on the deck.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 08:17
by spazsinbad
I'm always wary of furriners transrating their langwage into Engrish - SKY JUMP - yes indeed - the running jumping and standing still fillum of renown. Be that as it may and any other LIGHT carrier conniptions I reckon the TURKS will have to get a wriggle on to be 'operational with F-35Bs' from their new ski jump ships in the near soonish. There is a lot for them to learn that they have not seen before and who is going to help 'em - help him - help the turk - help him do the F-35B bidness. USMC? RN? Buehler? Anyone? Spanith? EYEtalians - I guess the country that knows best huh. Dunno. Those ideas and ships have been mentioned earlier on this forum also.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 09:10
by spazsinbad
An example of pesky furriners getting underfoot of dem LAND of DEM FReebies peeps - I'm always astounded by .... :

http://news.usni.org/2015/12/01/documen ... amic-state (PDF 0.7Mb)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 10:13
by spazsinbad
An oldie but a goldie - one may imagine how useful the Oz LHDs will be in the Command & Control Role (with a few F-35Bs overhead natch). There is a lot about this never never 2015 White Paper 'NexGenForce' (now never never 2016 probably).
CDF Binskin address to ASPI Nov 2014
ASPICanberra Published on Nov 13, 2014

"Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin addressed an audience at a recent ASPI-Boeing event at the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. In his speech Air Chief Marshal Binskin spoke about the significant modernisation of the ADF that has occurred as a byproduct of the high operational tempo over the past 15 years. He also emphasised the changing global security environment, pointing to the downing of MH17, the challenge of ISIL in Iraq and Syria, flaring territorial disputes and challenges to sovereignty as examples of this.

Air Chief Marshal Binskin told the audience that Australia is at a critical juncture in setting the direction of our defence strategy, and that the 2015 Defence White Paper will define the ADF into the second half of this century."


Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 19:21
by blindpilot
lookieloo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I'm wondering why current USN problems have to be taken up by allies?...
What % of GDP do Oz and Japan spend on defense again?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS


I have to say that when looking at carrying their load for self defense and interest advancement, Australia and Japan are way down on my list of concerns for partners after Canada, all of Europe (except UK and France), Philippines, New Zealand, et al.

If everyone took care of their own stuff, and alliance support as well as Australia and Japan are currently heading, almost all concerns would go away.

my 2 cents,
BP

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 20:44
by tritonprime
Incat Air Support SeaFrame, also known as LCC(X), 112m concept. (Australia) Littoral Catamaran Carrier?

Source:
http://blog.ifeng.com/article/1063527.html
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... ship/page3

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 21:27
by tritonprime

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 21:50
by tritonprime
From "Merlock" at the Key Aviation forums:

Another "never were ship" was the B?timent d'intervention polyvalent or BIP, in english "Multipurpose intervention ship". It was presented by the then DCN (today DCNS) at the Euronaval show in 1994 fior the export market...

Basically it was a "scaled down" version of the US Tarawa-class LHD, because as compared to the 40,000 tonnes Tarawa, the BIP had a smaller displacement of 19,000 tonnes.
Apart from that it was a similar concept of warship, capable of operating S/VTOL aircratfs and helicopters.

It also possessed a well deck for launching smaller landing craft, up to 2 Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) hovercraft or 4 Landing Craft Utility (LCUs) a would have carried a ready batalion-sized amphibious force, and provided all the necessary logistic...

Main characteristics:
Lenght: 198 m
Beam: 50 m
Draft: 6,50 m
Air draft: 22,60 m
Displacement (full): 19,000 tonnes
Consumables: 45 days
Crew: 450+15 passengers
Troops: 500 soldiers
Engine: CODOG 2x14700Kw + 2x3,8Kw diesel, 2 shafts
Speed: 22,5 knots
Range: 10,000 min at 15 knots
Air operations up to Force 6 sea.



Source:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... cept/page6
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... hips/page3

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 23:12
by tritonprime
From red_admiral on the Secret Projects forum. Model of the Vosper Thornycroft Harrier carrier circa 1976.

Source: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg110211

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 04:21
by lookieloo
All interesting concepts: but there's a point of diminishing-returns in shrinking carriers. About 20,000 tons seems to be the minimal useful size for F-35B embarkation, and closer to 30,000 tons is more practical. Then there's the question on whether to go with a pure light-carrier (Cavour/Izumo), or something with a well-deck (Juan-Carlos/Wasp). CVLs typically have advantages in speed, seakeeping, and sustained operations, while amphibs are adaptable to a wider range of military and nonmilitary functions.

Just remember that not everything with a flat deck is F-35B compatible; here the quick of it.

-Wasp: yes
-America: yes
-Cavour: yes
-Juan Carlos: yes
-Izumo: probably
-Hyūga: probably not
-Dokdo: probably not
-Mistral: no

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 04:30
by popcorn
That Austal design seems awfully stubby. Yes it does have a ramp but I wonder if it has enough length to allow a STO with full internal fuel and weapons load?3

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 05:46
by tritonprime
Artist's impression of BAE Systems LHD concept circa 2011.

Source: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/07/l ... -question/

Via Google Translate:
BAE Systems has put on the market the design of a LHD based on HMS Ocean. The ship is 210 feet long and displaces 23,000 tons. The maximum speed is 22 knots and the range of 7000 miles. The crew of about 300 sailors and 800 marines can take. The flight deck can operate six medium helicopters simultaneously and carry six in the hangar. There is space to carry 250 tons of cargo and 100 vehicles.


Source:
http://www.naval.com.br/blog/2011/07/29 ... e-systems/

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 06:08
by tritonprime
Blohm+Voss Class LHD
Blohm+Voss Landing Platform Helicopter Dockship (LHD)
Designed and built to the proven standards of the Classification Society Germanische Lloyd, the Blohm+Voss LHD provides a cost-effective means of transporting, putting ashore and supporting a mechanised battalion and its vehicles and equipment by helicopter, landing craft, hovercraft and rafts.

Critical commercial standards have been navalised to harden the ship, in particular in the aspects of vulnerability and damage control arrangements. The ship fits the necessary sensors and effectors for self-defence. The Blohm+Voss LHD’s design uniquely incorporates a stepped ‘Multi-Purpose Deck’ aft, which can be a landing spot for a helicopter, with horizontal hangar access, or used for the stowing of up to 54 TEU containers, allowing the ship to carry a large amount of logistic support equipment and stores without interrupting flying operations, as the large 4800 m² main flight deck remains clear with four landing spots and vertical hangar access. The Main Flight and Multi-Purpose Decks are served by a 24-ton slewing crane. A spacious 985 m² well-dock plus four davit positions provide for carrying of up to eight landing craft of various types. Vehicles are stowed on a special 2250 m² vehicle deck, with RO-RO access via stern and side ramps. Furthermore, the Blohm+Voss LHD is equipped for theatre-level Command and Control of amphibious operations, extensive casualty evacuation and hospital facilities and is capable of carrying 1000 tons of cargo. These capabilities for amphibious operations give this ship superb inherent capabilities for humanitarian operations, disaster relief, and for general logistic support of remote stations and islands. The robust, proven and economical diesel-electric propulsion system driving two CPPs is simple to operate and maintain but provides for superior acoustic signatures, vulnerability and shock resistance as well as a shallower navigating draught than other propulsion arrangements, such as pod-mounted drives.
Technical Data
Main Dimensions

Length o.a. 209.0 m
Beam max. 31.3 m
Draft

6.45 m
Displacement

22,900 t
Speed 21 kn
Range

10,000 nm/12 kn
Propulsion Plant

Diesel Electric
Diesel propulsion generators 6
Electric propulsion motors 2
Complement

Crew 534
Embarked Forces 900
Helicopter Payload



Landing spots 5

10 t Hangar
4
Amphibious Payload

Well Dock 4 x LCM or
2 x LCAC or
1 x LCAT
on Davits 4 x LCVP
2 x RHIB
Vehicle Payload

Main battle tanks 6
amphibious vehicles 20
heavy trucks 40


Source: https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems. ... s-lhd.html

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2015, 01:55
by lookieloo
The BAE and Blohm+Voss concepts don't appear to be fixed-wing capable. There's more to it than just having a flat deck.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2015, 03:55
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:That Austal design seems awfully stubby. Yes it does have a ramp but I wonder if it has enough length to allow a STO with full internal fuel and weapons load?3
Most STOVL takeoff runs don't use the whole deck on the big amphibs. So it might work... but it would likely have other issues besides length.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2015, 04:38
by popcorn
lookieloo wrote:
popcorn wrote:That Austal design seems awfully stubby. Yes it does have a ramp but I wonder if it has enough length to allow a STO with full internal fuel and weapons load?3
Most STOVL takeoff runs don't use the whole deck on the big amphibs. So it might work... but it would likely have other issues besides length.


Unlikely..
Austal design = 112m = 367.5 ft
USMC F-35B STO KPP = 600 ft
RN CVF F-35B STO (Ramp) KPP = 450 ft

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2015, 03:47
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:Unlikely..
Austal design = 112m = 367.5 ft
USMC F-35B STO KPP = 600 ft
RN CVF F-35B STO (Ramp) KPP = 450 ft
So tiny catamaran-hull carriers are still a no go. However, I may have to eat my words on the Dokdo-class. This is a tough one to figure out due to language-barriers and tendency of online content out of Asia to blend fantasy, reality, and plausibility. It's pretty hard to tell where one ends and the other begins, or which comes first; but rumor seems to indicate that the South Koreans are looking to build a second LHD that incorporates at-least some fixed-wing capability. Supposedly, the ship is already under construction and expected to enter service in 2018; though I'm unable to find any photos of the Marado on the ways.

Sources include:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokdo-cla ... sault_ship Of course, only good for the most basic info.
...The second unit, ROKS Marado, is named after Marado Island, commonly thought of as being both the ending and beginning point of the Korean Peninsula. Today a monument stands there recognizing it as the southernmost point of the country. This ship was cancelled once, but the budget was restored in 2012. A ski ramp for operations of V/STOL jet fighters is being considered for Marado...


https://voat.co/v/ModernPowers/comments/370352/1533728 This appears to be spillage into online RPG-gaming.
...Currently under construction by Hanjin Heavy Industries, the ROKS Marado is expected to be commissioned in October of 2018. This ship will feature several improvements over it's older sister, the ROKS Dokdo. Chief among these improvements is the addition of a ski ramp to better handle the operation of STOVL jet fighters like the F-35B, the first of which will be delivered in July, shortly before the ROKS Marado's commissioning...


http://themess.net/forum/military-discu ... -class-lpx This is a forum thread started with a Hongul source that I can't read or gauge the accuracy of.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dodko-class/
...The ship can operate short-range and VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) aircraft such as the Harrier or F-35B, when equipped with a ski jump board module...


http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... ft-Carrier
...the Navy could build an amphibious assault ship, similar to the Spanish Navy’s Juan Carlos, before 2019...

...the service aims to build two 30,000-ton light aircraft carriers between 2028 and 2036, the report said. The carrier is to have specifications similar to the Italian aircraft carrier Cavour, which can support about 30 aircraft...

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2015, 04:19
by spazsinbad
Thanks for that summary 'lookieloo' I wonder how it will pan out with South Korean Bees? And to add to the 'popcorn' stats:

A RAF website has defined maximum load thusly and this may not apply to the quote tacked on otherwise below below....
"...a maximum [F-35B] weapon payload of 6 Paveway IV, 2 AIM-120C AMRAAM, 2 AIM-132 ASRAAM and a missionised 25mm gun pod...." http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35join ... ighter.cfm

& IF we roughly calculate the CVF deck length available including jump then it has 850 feet available (with fifty foot at stern extra - allowing for taxi/lineup etc. so with some 'pushback' perhaps some extra footage may help in adverse conditions & of course WODplus otherwise. CVF deck: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7369/9929 ... 94ae_o.png
LIGHTNING STRIKES
ETS winter 2012_13

“...Onboard the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers, the aircraft would take off at its maximum weight of nearly 27 tonnes using a UK-developed ski-jump, and land either vertically or using the novel UK-developed Short Rolling Vertical Landing [SRVL) technique. This would enable the jet to land at a much higher weight than is possible in a purely vertical Landing. [2204.62lbs = 1 tonne | 59,535lbs = 27 tonnes] (F-35B is in the 60K weight class) Wing Commander Hackett explained: "SRVL is under development for the carriers. but it means the aircraft would fly in at around 60 to 70 mph and then brake to a stop on the deck,.... It will be able to land up to 1.8 tonnes (4,000lbs [3968.32072 pounds]) heavier than would otherwise be possible, meaning unexpended weapons can be brought back to the ship.”

Source: http://content.yudu.com/A219ee/ETSWin12 ... ces/20.htm

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2015, 05:51
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for that summary 'lookieloo' I wonder how it will pan out with South Korean Bees?
As with Izumo before its launch, western media outlets simply aren't paying any attention. Poking around with Google Translate, I get the impression that LPH-6112 may possibly be larger than Dokdo, though there may be some interplay there with Korea bidding on India's amphib tender. With a 2018 commission date, we might be seeing a launch in the 2016-2017 period, at which point we'll get a better idea of what aircraft the Koreans plan to embark. A ramp would be a dead-giveaway, but even that wouldn't necessarily mean that a Bee order is imminent. My guess is that the Bee won't pick up any more customers until after the USMC starts deploying it at sea.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2015, 06:27
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:..a maximum [F-35B] weapon payload of 6 Paveway IV, 2 AIM-120C AMRAAM, 2 AIM-132 ASRAAM and a missionised 25mm gun pod...." ....

Ok...3,000 lbs. of bombs and 1,000 lbs. of gun plus regular load of missiles...soo...regular/ basic ord. load (can't fly sans missiles... +... 4,000 lbs..

so....is the "CUTE" ski jump to give a 4klb. advantage to flat deck T.O. or less fuel use or what?? (.. and how much is the delta?????...does anyone yet know??..what's the calc??..)..besides being "CUTE"....

...give me +2klb. (ordinance or fuel margin) and I'll spot you the "cute"....

....
.....
..... It will be able to land up to ..(+4,000lbs..) ...(less the fuel margins; or fuel vs. ordinance....) heavier than would otherwise be possible, ....


....how do you "bolter" if you run out of deck (brakes)???...barrier????

..inquiring minds want to know!!
:)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2015, 06:41
by lookieloo
neptune wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:..a maximum [F-35B] weapon payload of 6 Paveway IV, 2 AIM-120C AMRAAM, 2 AIM-132 ASRAAM and a missionised 25mm gun pod...." ....

Ok...3,000 lbs. of bombs and 1,000 lbs. of gun plus regular load of missiles...soo...regular/ basic ord. load (can't fly sans missiles... +... 4,000 lbs..

so....is the "CUTE" ski jump to give a 4klb. advantage to flat deck T.O. or less fuel use or what?? (.. and how much is the delta?????...does anyone yet know??..what's the calc??..)..besides being "CUTE"....

...give me +2klb. (ordinance or fuel margin) and I'll spot you the "cute"....

....
.....
..... It will be able to land up to ..(+4,000lbs..) ...(less the fuel margins; or fuel vs. ordinance....) heavier than would otherwise be possible, ....


....how do you "bolter" if you run out of deck (brakes)???...barrier????

..inquiring minds want to know!!
:)
60 mph onto a very large deck that's going 30 mph... it's not gonna be all that intense dude.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2015, 06:44
by spazsinbad
There is a long running thread about CVF SRVL 'boltering' which was agreed at the time is NOT quite the same as a conventional bolter - but details are lacking and yet to be explicated except whatever is on this thread:

F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available (search thread on 'bolter' for specific info)
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=230592&hilit=SRVL#p230592

I'm not following about the 'cute' logic of your ski jump trashing. It is there for a reason well known to at least long time users of such devices - specifically the RN FAA with SHARS (and later RAF with their Harrier versions). There must be a tOnnne of info about the ski jump both in text and in specific PDFs made available online for such a purpose.

On Spazzo OneDRive page in the folder: _SRVL & Ski Jump F-35B Information PDFs check it

https://onedrive.live.com/?id=CBCD63D63 ... D6340707E6


Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2015, 06:57
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:There is a long running thread about CVF SRVL 'boltering' which was agreed at the time is NOT quite the same as a conventional bolter - but details are lacking and yet to be explicated except whatever is on this thread:

F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available (search thread on 'bolter' for specific info)
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=230592&hilit=SRVL#p230592...]


Spaz,

OK, thanks for the tip on the bolter (read later); guess I'll dig into the "CUTE" ski jump (other than maybe "shorter boats") in my spare time... :)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2015, 07:00
by lookieloo
^^^This^^^ does illustrate one advantage of fast CVLs over amphibs when it comes to F-35B ops, more wind over the deck for reduced speed differential on SRVL and increased takeoff performance.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2015, 07:40
by spazsinbad
Not only are there obvious advantages to using a ski jump distance for STO decreased for a given weight compared to a flat deck STO - but also the reduced STO/ski jump distance allows more activity upon the deck behind the STO start point.

However usually pilots will say the main advantage is that it is SAFE. The aircraft is going partly ballistic temporarily GOING UP which allows more time to react if things go RONG. Not only but also the ski jump allows STOs in weather / sea conditions which may ground flat deck STOers. And so it goes.

There is also the recent 'ski jumping and running standing still' thread here (amongst other threads/posts).

Patuxent River Ski Jump Video (No F-35Bs on it)
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20138

HOWEVER most info posted here is in the PDFs available freely online - all the info in one place on the same day going the same way.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 02:00
by popcorn
F-35B has that niche for baby carrier jets all to ifself.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rrier.html

Just What The Middle East Needs: Turkey’s Getting An Aircraft Carrier
ISTANBUL — Turkey is getting ready to widen the reach of its military considerably by building a multipurpose aircraft carrier with “trans-continental” capabilities.

The 225-meter ship dubbed the Anadolu (or Anatolia), set to enter service in 2021, is designed to take fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, tanks, troops, and landing vessels to areas around the Mediterranean and as far as the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans, officials say. While some analysts say Turkey needs a carrier like this, some regard the project as an expensive expression of prestige and grandeur that far exceeds the country’s limits...

Analysts describe the carrier as a landing platform dock, or an LPD, which is a warship used to carry troops to flashpoints and send them ashore with the help of on-board landing vessels, or a landing helicopter dock (LHD). The vessel will come with its own small fleet of F-35 fighter jets and helicopters, a hospital with at least 30 beds, and room for landing boats and other smaller crafts as well as for 13 battle tanks.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 02:10
by count_to_10
popcorn wrote:F-35B has that niche for baby carrier jets all to ifself.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rrier.html

Just What The Middle East Needs: Turkey’s Getting An Aircraft Carrier
ISTANBUL — Turkey is getting ready to widen the reach of its military considerably by building a multipurpose aircraft carrier with “trans-continental” capabilities.

The 225-meter ship dubbed the Anadolu (or Anatolia), set to enter service in 2021, is designed to take fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, tanks, troops, and landing vessels to areas around the Mediterranean and as far as the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans, officials say. While some analysts say Turkey needs a carrier like this, some regard the project as an expensive expression of prestige and grandeur that far exceeds the country’s limits...

Analysts describe the carrier as a landing platform dock, or an LPD, which is a warship used to carry troops to flashpoints and send them ashore with the help of on-board landing vessels, or a landing helicopter dock (LHD). The vessel will come with its own small fleet of F-35 fighter jets and helicopters, a hospital with at least 30 beds, and room for landing boats and other smaller crafts as well as for 13 battle tanks.

Given all the trouble Turkey is already ignoring in it's own neighborhood, I'm not sure what use it has for projecting power with a carrier.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 02:18
by spazsinbad
As the Royal Australian Navy has done (and only partially corrected so far that our LHDs are really warships - for the use of) subsequent paragraphs in that article point out the HADR response / evacuate civilians scenarios (also valid in the Oz region - needed in the past in various crises). So there is that - one sees what one wants to see - so half right all round?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 04:35
by magitsu
Cyprus is the only realistic need, but still doesn't make any sense to build a bn dollar LPD for it. Operating much further than that requires plenty of supporting ships.

Mistral(s) would be safer option than insisting on developing and building just one domestically.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 04:42
by spazsinbad
Cyprus needs what? Turkish nationals needed evacuation from Libya according to the story - there must be a lot of Turkish nationals in all the countries that border the Med. Similarly Oz has nationals all over South Pacific - FIJI was a problem....

Probably best to read the article at source for the other perceived 'soft power' benefits of the Turkish LHD - it is a 'Swiss Army Knife' - suitable for all kinds of scenarios - that is how Oz sees it as well - although only HADR emphasised early on.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2016, 05:38
by popcorn
It's also an image thing, having a carrier to proudly show the flag around the region that symbolizes their growing military capabiliies.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 01:28
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:F-35B has that niche for baby carrier jets all to ifself.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rrier.html
Hipster-blog crybabies notwithstanding, I really like the idea of a NATO carrier with free access to the Black Sea.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 01:55
by popcorn
lookieloo wrote:
popcorn wrote:F-35B has that niche for baby carrier jets all to ifself.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rrier.html
Hipster-blog crybabies notwithstanding, I really like the idea of a NATO carrier with free access to the Black Sea.

They'll be fine so long as they don't call it an "aircraft carrier" so as not to violate treaty provisions.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 02:18
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
popcorn wrote:F-35B has that niche for baby carrier jets all to ifself.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rrier.html
Hipster-blog crybabies notwithstanding, I really like the idea of a NATO carrier with free access to the Black Sea.

They'll be fine so long as they don't call it an "aircraft carrier" so as not to violate treaty provisions.
There's actually no prohibition on carriers, only tonnage/time limits on non-Black Sea countries.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 02:54
by popcorn
Aircraft carriers are not explicitly prohibited but apparently rules allow any Capital Ships of Black Sea states eg. Turkey to transit except specifically ships which are primarily designed to operate aircraft ie. Aircraft Carriers. :shock: A LHD-type vessel would have no problem.

Per Wiki..
By contrast, Black Sea powers such as the USSR were able to transit aircraft carrying cruisers through the straits under other terms of the convention. As with non-Black Seas powers, the Montreux convention does not explicitly forbid a Black Sea power from transiting aircraft carriers through the straits, and the tonnage limits in Article 14 also apply to Black Sea powers as well as non-Black Sea powers. However, under Article 11, Black Sea states are permitted to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the straits. Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ships, but limits the definition of carriers to ships that are designed primarily for carrying and operating aircraft at sea and specifically excludes other ships that merely are able to operate aircraft.[13]

The result of this is that by designing its aircraft carrying ships such as Kiev and Admiral Kuznetsov to have roles other than aircraft operation and by designating those ships as "aircraft carrying cruisers" rather than "aircraft carriers" the Soviet Union was able to transit its aircraft carrying ships through the straits in compliance with the convention, while at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which are not covered by the exemption in Article 11.[14][15][16]

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2016, 20:37
by spazsinbad
Amid rising tensions, Turkey is building an aircraft carrier
Jan 2016 JEREMY BENDER

"...According to the analysis site Bosphorus Naval News, the Anadolu will be able to hold upwards of 10 F-35Bs. Additionally, the carrier could hold upwards of 12 helicopters, 94 battle tanks, and at least 700 troops. The vessel will also feature an onboard hospital that will hold 34 beds...."

Bosphorus Naval News:
http://turkishnavy.net/new-type-lhd-class/ & https://turkishnavy.files.wordpress.com ... event2.jpg

Source: https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.word ... t-carrier/

"Final concept of Turkish aircraft carrier like LHD + F-35B (network54.com)"
photo: https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.file ... s_f-35.jpg

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2016, 05:02
by spazsinbad
This IS a surprise.
The Construction Of The Multipurpose Amphibious Assault Ship TCG Anadolu Has Started
02 May 2016 Bosphorus Naval News

"The construction of the multipurpose amphibious assault ship L-408 TCG Anadolu has started on 30th April 2016.

The ship is based on Navatia’s Juan Carlos 1 design. TCG Anadolu will be similar to SPS Juan Carlos 1 in Spanish Navy and HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra in Royal Australian Navy.

During the ceremony President of Turkish Republic Recep Tayyip Erdoğan made a speech. During his speech he stated that TCG Anadolu will be the first ship in Turkish Navy from which F-35B SVTOL planes will operate. This is the first time official declaration of the long known desire of Turkey to operate fixed wing planes from her ships. This statement also made it clear that Turkey will procure F-35B planes along with her order of F-35A planes....

...The ship will carry 6 F-35B Lightning II planes 4 T-129 ATAK attack helicopters 8 cargo helicopters 2 S-70B Seahawk helicopters and 2 UAVs....."

Graphics: https://turkishnavy.files.wordpress.com ... levent.jpg & https://turkishnavy.files.wordpress.com ... 150564.jpg

Source: https://turkishnavy.net/2016/05/02/the- ... s-started/

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2016, 06:04
by lookieloo
As the Chinese would say... "Ho lee fuk."

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2016, 23:30
by spazsinbad
Good Engrish here with belated news from long ago also:
Turkey Started the Construction of its future LHD TCG Anadolu
02 May 2016 Navy Recognition

"...Turkish Navy LHD Specifications At IDEF 2015, Sedef shipyard gave the latest LHD specifications to Navy Recognition:
Length overall: 231 meters
Maximum beam: 32 meters
Draught: 6.8 meters
Height: 58 meters
Maximum speed: 21 knots
Range: 9,000 miles @ economical speed... "

PHOTO: http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/s ... 2015_3.jpg

THE OLD NEWS: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... -jets.html [I'm underwhelmed by the 'could' in the headline - "I coulda been a contenda"]


Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... adolu.html

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2016, 20:34
by old_rn
Why worry about the Montreaux convention. The US has already repeatadly violated in terms of the size limit on non-Black Sea countries and the three week deployment time limit with the deployments of DDGs for four weeks in the Black Sea. :D

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2016, 22:24
by noth
old_rn wrote:Why worry about the Montreux convention. The US has already repeatadly violated in terms of the size limit on non-Black Sea countries and the three week deployment time limit with the deployments of DDGs for four weeks in the Black Sea. :D


FTFY

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 01:21
by spazsinbad
Turkey Setting Sails on Big Naval Ambitions
06 May 2016 Burak Ege Bekdil

"ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey has just officially begun constructing its first landing platform dock (LPD) but the country’s president already is talking about future production of an aircraft carrier and even a nuclear vessel.

The production of the TCG Anadolu, Turkey’s first amphibious assault ship, kicked off last month at a high-profile ceremony attended by defense and procurement VIPs and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Speaking at the ceremony, Erdogan praised efforts for Turkey’s all indigenous development programs, including the LPD, although he called the ship’s production “a belated move.”....

...The planned amphibious assault vessel will carry a battalion-sized unit of 1,200 troops and personnel, eight utility helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles; it also will transport 150 vehicles, including battle tanks.

It also may have an aircraft platform for vertical takeoff and landing. A ski jump at the front of the deck can be used to launch fighter aircraft.

Metin Kalkavan, chairman of Sedef, told reporters that it was not clear at this stage whether the TCG Anadolu would feature a ski jump. “We’ll decide on that at later stages of the program,” he said.

Industry sources estimate the cost of the contract at over $1 billion.

Under the original production plan the 231-meter-long vessel will be completed within 5½ years. But Erdogan urged Sedef to deliver the vessel within four years.

“That way,” Erdogan said during the ceremony, “you can win further contracts from foreign customers as well as from our government.”

The TCG Anadolu will be deployed on the Aegean Sea, Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, as well as on Turkish Navy's operations in the Atlantic and Indian oceans...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83961760/

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 05:09
by tincansailor
spazsinbad wrote:
Turkey Setting Sails on Big Naval Ambitions
06 May 2016 Burak Ege Bekdil

"ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey has just officially begun constructing its first landing platform dock (LPD) but the country’s president already is talking about future production of an aircraft carrier and even a nuclear vessel.

The production of the TCG Anadolu, Turkey’s first amphibious assault ship, kicked off last month at a high-profile ceremony attended by defense and procurement VIPs and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Speaking at the ceremony, Erdogan praised efforts for Turkey’s all indigenous development programs, including the LPD, although he called the ship’s production “a belated move.”....

...The planned amphibious assault vessel will carry a battalion-sized unit of 1,200 troops and personnel, eight utility helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles; it also will transport 150 vehicles, including battle tanks.

It also may have an aircraft platform for vertical takeoff and landing. A ski jump at the front of the deck can be used to launch fighter aircraft.

Metin Kalkavan, chairman of Sedef, told reporters that it was not clear at this stage whether the TCG Anadolu would feature a ski jump. “We’ll decide on that at later stages of the program,” he said.

Industry sources estimate the cost of the contract at over $1 billion.

Under the original production plan the 231-meter-long vessel will be completed within 5½ years. But Erdogan urged Sedef to deliver the vessel within four years.

“That way,” Erdogan said during the ceremony, “you can win further contracts from foreign customers as well as from our government.”

The TCG Anadolu will be deployed on the Aegean Sea, Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, as well as on Turkish Navy's operations in the Atlantic and Indian oceans...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83961760/


This ships sounds like it's much bigger then an LPD. It sounds more like an LPH, or LPA. At 231 meters, with a full flight deck it would be almost as big as the USS Wasp. With a ski jump I guess it could support F-35Bs, if it has a large enough hanger deck. At this point what other STOVL aircraft could it be? Collect old Harriers? Carrying a whole battalion, with supporting helicopters, and 6 F-35Bs constitutes a pretty formidable amphibious force.

Just where Turkey would send a long range intervention force is beyond me. Worst case would be Gaza to protect Hamas from Israel. They mentioned deployments in the Indian Ocean, that I just don't get. Egypt bought the 2 Mistral Class LPHs that were embargoed from Russia. It seems everyone wants a sophisticated amphibious warfare capability. I guess India will be next with big deck amphibs.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 05:16
by spazsinbad
'tcs' this is an RAN LHD from Spanish LHD design JCI. RAN LHD: http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd
"Major Statistics [RAN LHD same as JCI]
• Length Overall 230.82m
• Moulded Beam 32.00m
• Beam Waterline 29.50m
• Flight Deck height 27.50m
• Draft at Full Load Displacement 7.08m
• Full Load Displacement 27,500 tonnes "

from over page Turkish delight:
""...Turkish Navy LHD Specifications At IDEF 2015, Sedef shipyard gave the latest LHD specifications to Navy Recognition:
Length overall: 231 meters
Maximum beam: 32 meters
Draught: 6.8 meters
Height: 58 meters
Maximum speed: 21 knots
Range: 9,000 miles @ economical speed... "

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 09:01
by tincansailor
spazsinbad wrote:'tcs' this is an RAN LHD from Spanish LHD design JCI. RAN LHD: http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd
"Major Statistics [RAN LHD same as JCI]
• Length Overall 230.82m
• Moulded Beam 32.00m
• Beam Waterline 29.50m
• Flight Deck height 27.50m
• Draft at Full Load Displacement 7.08m
• Full Load Displacement 27,500 tonnes "

from over page Turkish delight:
""...Turkish Navy LHD Specifications At IDEF 2015, Sedef shipyard gave the latest LHD specifications to Navy Recognition:
Length overall: 231 meters
Maximum beam: 32 meters
Draught: 6.8 meters
Height: 58 meters
Maximum speed: 21 knots
Range: 9,000 miles @ economical speed... "



Thanks spazsindad. They seem similar in dimensions, range, and troop carrying capacity. However if they intend to operate fixed wing aircraft like the F-35B then they most have a much larger hanger deck to accommodate a compliment of both them and a useful sized force of medium helicopters. The Adelaide can only carry 8 medium helicopters, 18 if the light vehicle deck isn't being used. You might think it would be in use most of the time since the main function of the ship is to transport and land a fully equipped infantry battalion, which would include light vehicles.

As was discussed in earlier threads the hanger on the Adelaide can't accommodate the F-35B. As I said to operate both it and a useful group of helicopters the hanger deck would have to be much larger. She would need bomb, and missile magazines with all the attendant equipment, and systems, with more powerful elevators, (Lifts, my Australian friend. Just kidding.) Then don't forget JPALS. It seems to me it would be thousands more tons displacement then the Adelaide. You notice they don't give an estimated tonnage for their LHD.

It's just a shame the Adelaide wasn't designed to operate F-35Bs. Interesting that the Turks seem more ambitious then the Australians. Of course they may not decide to incorporate STOVL capability. The extra cost, and complexity may scare them off as it seems to have scared off every other light carrier operator in the world. It seems none of the Spanish, French, Italian, or Japanese designed light carries can operate the F-35B. So it's only us and the Brits. A pretty small club till someone decides to go bigger, and more ambitious.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 09:22
by tincansailor
Wops I was wrong. The Spanish designed carriers can operate F-35Bs. Sorry. Please remember I'm a tincan sailor, not an Air Dale. Good night all.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 09:29
by spazsinbad
I do not know how you get your information however this info has been repeated many times now. Oz LHDs were more or less exact copies of the original Spanish LHD JCI with some minor differences. As I understand there is flexibility in how spaces are arranged for different amounts of cargo transport in the LHDs. In any event without some further detail from the RAN we can only know that - for the moment - they do not want to operate F-35Bs and may never want to do so.

I was expecting some details about the possibility (Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs) in the recent White Paper 2016 however nothing was said which shows to me no one is interested despite the former PM & DefMin expressing interest to know about it. However saying that F-35Bs cannot be operated on our LHDs is the same as me saying that they can. I would suggest that for USMC F-35Bs to test ops on our LHDs that the deck needs to have appropriate deck paint (THERMION) in required places with perhaps some other unknown minor modifications. Unless the helicopters require JPALS then the RAN is not going to install JPALS just on the off chance. Like a lot of things it may be in a possible future, along with other mods that enhance / update the usefulness of our LHDs. We know ships are modified all the time in refit periods - so who knows.

And to be clear the Turks have said their LHD will be an aircraft carrier. No one says this about Oz LHDs. The Spanish make some minor temporary reversible changes to make their JCI into an 'aircraft carrier'. These changes are quantified elsewhere. Again our LHDs are more or less the same as the JCI.

OK whilst I was typing I see your new comment above about JCI/LHDs can operate F-35Bs. Cool eh. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 22:08
by tincansailor
spazsinbad wrote:I do not know how you get your information however this info has been repeated many times now. Oz LHDs were more or less exact copies of the original Spanish LHD JCI with some minor differences. As I understand there is flexibility in how spaces are arranged for different amounts of cargo transport in the LHDs. In any event without some further detail from the RAN we can only know that - for the moment - they do not want to operate F-35Bs and may never want to do so.

I was expecting some details about the possibility (Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs) in the recent White Paper 2016 however nothing was said which shows to me no one is interested despite the former PM & DefMin expressing interest to know about it. However saying that F-35Bs cannot be operated on our LHDs is the same as me saying that they can. I would suggest that for USMC F-35Bs to test ops on our LHDs that the deck needs to have appropriate deck paint (THERMION) in required places with perhaps some other unknown minor modifications. Unless the helicopters require JPALS then the RAN is not going to install JPALS just on the off chance. Like a lot of things it may be in a possible future, along with other mods that enhance / update the usefulness of our LHDs. We know ships are modified all the time in refit periods - so who knows.

And to be clear the Turks have said their LHD will be an aircraft carrier. No one says this about Oz LHDs. The Spanish make some minor temporary reversible changes to make their JCI into an 'aircraft carrier'. These changes are quantified elsewhere. Again our LHDs are more or less the same as the JCI.

OK whilst I was typing I see your new comment above about JCI/LHDs can operate F-35Bs. Cool eh. :mrgreen:


No I don't have any special information other then public sources. What I remember in earlier threads on this subject is that the RAN LHDs didn't have the kind of facilities, or height requirements on the Hanger Deck for F-35Bs. My own statement just didn't seem right to me, so I looked up additional information and found out I was wrong. The Spanish design can be modified to carry F-35Bs. The RAN decided they didn't want it.

My other comments seemed to make sense to me. If your putting F-35Bs on the LHD it would take space away from both the helicopters and the light vehicle deck. Also if you have Strike Aircraft you'd need magazines for bombs and missiles, plus more aviation fuel stores. It just seems to me it would take more then just a simple modification to give this ship both strike capability, while still retaining the ability to land a full infantry battalion with all it's equipment, and vehicles.

Every ship is a design compromise. When they were designing the America Class LHA's they put too much emphasis on the aviation element, and gave up the Well Deck. They forgot the ships main function is to land marines. The design lost it's balance. Now the America is dependent on other anphib ships to provide landing craft. That's why LHA-8 and on will restore the Well Deck. What I was saying is the Turkish Ship may have the same problem, giving them F-35Bs may take away some of the power of the landing force element. If they want both they need a bigger ship.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2016, 22:20
by spazsinbad
'tcs' said (after I posted a reply above): "....The RAN decided they didn't want it [F-35B]...." The RAN have not said anything of the sort. It is not their call but if not the RAAF then ADF. As far as we know NOTHING has been decided. We have no information from request of previous PM & DefMin about this idea 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs'. Because there is no information one may conclude that there is no requirement now but 'no one in the RAN has said publically that they do not want F-35Bs'. The RAN may well say that however they have not to date said that.

Yes if the F-35B is operated semi-permanently on an LHD then some stores arrangements will change - makes sense. Some other ARMY capabilities most likely will be restrained - makes sense to me. These ideas have been canvassed a few times over the years (for example on the 'very long thread about such matters'). In the case of the Turk LHD they are going to make it an 'aircraft carrier' with F-35Bs from the start - is that not clear. Now they have said they may forego the ski jump - which seems a very silly idea indeed.

What USS America has to do with all of this I don't know. An LHD is not in the same class or has the same purpose.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2016, 00:40
by tincansailor
spazsinbad wrote:'tcs' said (after I posted a reply above): "....The RAN decided they didn't want it [F-35B]...." The RAN have not said anything of the sort. It is not their call but if not the RAAF then ADF. As far as we know NOTHING has been decided. We have no information from request of previous PM & DefMin about this idea 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs'. Because there is no information one may conclude that there is no requirement now but 'no one in the RAN has said publically that they do not want F-35Bs'. The RAN may well say that however they have not to date said that.

Yes if the F-35B is operated semi-permanently on an LHD then some stores arrangements will change - makes sense. Some other ARMY capabilities most likely will be restrained - makes sense to me. These ideas have been canvassed a few times over the years (for example on the 'very long thread about such matters'). In the case of the Turk LHD they are going to make it an 'aircraft carrier' with F-35Bs from the start - is that not clear. Now they have said they may forego the ski jump - which seems a very silly idea indeed.

What USS America has to do with all of this I don't know. An LHD is not in the same class or has the same purpose.


I'm a little confused my friend. What I understand about these Spanish Carries is they can operate F-35Bs if they don't install the Light Vehicle Deck, which is directly below the Hanger Deck. That gives you a much deeper Hanger Deck with the room for F-35Bs, and other aviation assets. When Australia ordered the Adelaide's they wanted the LVD I would imagine because they thought it better to forgo the Strike Fighter capability in favor of the full amphibious capability.

Didn't the RAN make that decision along with the defense ministry? I understand the RAAF controls all fixed wing assets, even the P-3 Orion's that have a clear naval mission, but did they influence the decision? Were they thinking any F-35B's for the Navy would come out of any F-35A's for the RAAF? When you say the decision about RAN F-35B's hasn't been decided I think it has. To change it now would require a major refit of the Adelaide's, and a decision about who would control the F-35B's.

As for the Turkish LHD it seems they decided on the Strike Fighter option. In the press release it sounded like they wanted both capabilities, F-35B's and a fully equipped infantry battalion, which is why I thought they wanted a ship bigger by one deck. I was wrong, it seems it's the basic Spanish design with the F-35B option. Maybe they think they can do without a ski jump because the American Amphibs don't have them ether.

I only brought up USS America as an example of a design decision where you weigh aviation assets vs. amphib capabilities. Australia emphasized amphibious capability, Turkey wants a strike fighter capability. Australia seems to want LHA's to support peace keeping missions. Turkey may want to use their LHA as a light carrier to support offensive operations. Turkey is engaged in a major naval build up, we just don't know the intent of it all. An LHA plus new LST''s, just where are all these amphib troops going?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2016, 01:30
by spazsinbad
'tcs' said amongst other things above:
"What I understand about these Spanish Carries is they can operate F-35Bs if they don't install the Light Vehicle Deck, which is directly below the Hanger Deck. That gives you a much deeper Hanger Deck with the room for F-35Bs, and other aviation assets. When Australia ordered the Adelaide's they wanted the LVD I would imagine because they thought it better to forgo the Strike Fighter capability in favor of the full amphibious capability.

Didn't the RAN make that decision along with the defense ministry? I understand the RAAF controls all fixed wing assets, even the P-3 Orion's that have a clear naval mission, but did they influence the decision? Were they thinking any F-35B's for the Navy would come out of any F-35A's for the RAAF? When you say the decision about RAN F-35B's hasn't been decided I think it has. To change it now would require a major refit of the Adelaide's, and a decision about who would control the F-35B's...."

I would like to know where you gather this information to make the claim "operate F-35Bs if they don't install the Light Vehicle Deck".

Yes the ADF (Australian Defence Forces) make decisions about assets that are ratified or changed by political decisions finally. There is no real single RAN input as such to the LHDs although their opinion will carry more weight we might agree. I think until you read the 'very long thread' about such matters - perhaps starting from the end to work backwards as appropriate - we go around in circles about 'F-35Bs on LHDs'. You 'tcs' want to make absolute claims that I counter claim are not absolute. And I give my reasons why. So please provide sources for your claims.

'The Very Long Thread' for moment ends here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=315331&hilit=NOES#p315331 WATCH THIS VIDEO PLEASE

Read some of my posts to see why I make no ABSOLUTE statements about the future - plans change - there is a history. My understanding is that a MINOR refit will allow F-35Bs on our LHDs - IF THEY ARE OURS or USMC - temporarily. Reasons are in the articles from 'Engines' aka 'Steve George' that make it clear how easy it will be. But I acknowledge IF the F-35B ops from our LHDs are not wanted - for now - then that is the situation. However I do not rule it out in future - especially if the South China Sea situation filters down to our region.

For example (and this is purely fanciful with roots in past reality) IF Fiji decides to allow China to reinforce past intransigence about Indians sharing power with native Fijians and threatening Aus/NZ nationals in process, then our LHDs will be off Fiji with other assets to at least exfiltrate people. However transit to Fiji opens task force to Chinese air assets based in Fiji to threaten said task force. I do not need to say more because this is purely hypothetical and probably very unrealistic but I cannot predict the future. Looking at the past East Timor situation, the ADF realised their assets were deficient in regard to Indonesian threats at that time - hence LHDs. I'll guess from public info that the RAAF have been able to claim they will provide adequate fleet defence (along with RAN assets - AWDs). I have not seen a public explanation of how this 'fleet defence' will be provided. And I have not seen the RAN claim much about F-35Bs sadly.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2016, 02:32
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:'tcs' said (after I posted a reply above): "....The RAN decided they didn't want it [F-35B]...." The RAN have not said anything of the sort. It is not their call but if not the RAAF then ADF. As far as we know NOTHING has been decided. We have no information from request of previous PM & DefMin about this idea 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs'. Because there is no information one may conclude that there is no requirement now but 'no one in the RAN has said publically that they do not want F-35Bs'. The RAN may well say that however they have not to date said that.

Yes if the F-35B is operated semi-permanently on an LHD then some stores arrangements will change - makes sense. Some other ARMY capabilities most likely will be restrained - makes sense to me. These ideas have been canvassed a few times over the years (for example on the 'very long thread about such matters'). In the case of the Turk LHD they are going to make it an 'aircraft carrier' with F-35Bs from the start - is that not clear. Now they have said they may forego the ski jump - which seems a very silly idea indeed.

What USS America has to do with all of this I don't know. An LHD is not in the same class or has the same purpose.


You remain as ever, guilty of wishful thinking my friend. I applaud your optimism but you are turning a blind eye to the truth. Chief of RAN and CDF have REPEATEDLY denied any requirement for F-35B's from LHD's publicly and before Senate committees.

Why you'd expect to see a complete new naval air capability in DWP 2016 is beyond me. Again wishful thinking is the only cause for such optimism. 5-10 years ago you had the same optimistic outlook and absolutely nothing has changed to improve that outlook.

ADF (and more importantly our politicians) do NOT want F-35B's from it's LHD's and it has been said until they are absolutely 'blue in the face'. There are a whole range of vignettes where our capability won't stand up to certain scenarios but to intepret that as 'oh well plans can change' and therefore 'maybe' we will get them is just living in false hope. Neither political side want them, nor does ADF under current arrangements.

The LHD's in RAN service are Amphibs and Amphibs only. If we were to 'change our plans' a new dedicated boat at the minimum would be ADF's expectation, because trying to put them onto LHD is 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'. We finally (barely) have the amphibious lift we've needed for so long and the minute we do the chorus starts up to take it away and fly F-35's off a boat that at best, is poorly suited to that role, in order to partially accomodate an implausible at best and ludicrous at worst scenario...

I just don't get the fascination. If you champion a light - medium dedictaed carrier and the additional sub and surface escorts to properly support it, along with the enormous funding and manpower resource boost such will require, then I am all for it.

'Robbing Peter to pay Paul'? Absolutely not. The LHD's will be the equally most flexible asset ADF operates alongside C-17's. It is a capability that will not be hamstrung, just to support something we decided 30 plus years ago we no longer needed.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2016, 02:50
by spazsinbad
I'll guess 'Conan' has not read the very long thread - lately. Having a conversation with 'tcs' about these issues is not the same as having 'Conan' jump in with incorrect assumptions. Read the very long thread for more information about what I think (read backwards from the link I gave). Also 'Conan' needs to back up assertions. I will say again I was not expecting anything other than detail about the request of the former PM & DefMin in what became the DWP 2016. And there was nothing there as noted. I can accept that the situation is as it is and my thinking is made clear in the very long thread I hope. Notice this is not the thread about 'Oz LHDs with Oz F-35Bs' and I did not start that topic here & it is tedious indeed.

But always good to have opinions heard nevertheless from a stranger - where ya bin 'Conan'?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2016, 06:36
by neptune
[quote="Conan....., just to support something we decided 30 plus years ago we no longer needed.[/quote]

....hmmmn....nothing has changed in S.E. Asia in the last 30 yrs.???????

...one hopes the Aussies have a peaceful neighborhood ...and only need their boats for humanitarian purposes.....

...not to be obvious but as long as they have the ski jumps, others will always relate them to the Spanish and Turkish boats with their ski jumps, etc....(right or wrong)....Spaz can carry his own flag and has stated repeatedly , that y'all will do things different "down under".... :)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2016, 20:21
by airforces_freak
TCG Anadolu is not an exact replica of the Navantia LHD purchased by Spain and Australia. She has been designed by STM of Turkey with technological input from Navantia and will be built at SEDEF shipyards. Unlike her sisters in the Spanish and Australian navies the Turkish ship will only have diesel engines. There will be five MAN 16V32/40 engines each creating 7.680kW and propelling the ship up to 21 knots. The range is estimated to be 9.000 nautical miles. The ship will have one Mk-49 launcher for Rolling Airframe Missile, 2 Mk-15 Phalanx Block 1B CIWS, 5 Stabilized Gun platforms probably armed with 25mm gun for self-defence. It will carry 6 F-35B Lightning II planes 4 T-129 ATAK attack helicopters 8 cargo helicopters 2 S-70B Seahawk helicopters and 2 UAVs. The number of F-35 can be increased to 12 at anytime. TCG Anadolu will also have "carrier escorts": 1 Tf-2000 class AAW Destroyer (similar to Aegis frigate) and 4 I-class general purpose frigates.

Turkey intends to produce 4 Light Carriers of this class.

Turkey also plans to acquire a nuclear powered super-carrier after 2023.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2016, 21:37
by zerion
airforces_freak wrote:
Turkey intends to produce 4 Light Carriers of this class.

Turkey also plans to acquire a nuclear powered super-carrier after 2023.


:shock: :shock: got a link to that?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2016, 09:30
by airforces_freak
zerion wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:
Turkey intends to produce 4 Light Carriers of this class.

Turkey also plans to acquire a nuclear powered super-carrier after 2023.


:shock: :shock: got a link to that?


Lol where do I begin...

Ok. Firstly, there has been "chatter" about a Nuclear powered supercarrier since IDEF 2015. However, concrete indications that this was actually planned did not surface until when the Turkish President himself made comments about nuclear powered vessels. This was followed by statements from Mr. Metin Kalkavan, owner of SEDEF shipyard (builder of the current LHD) confirming discussions with the Turkish President about a nuclear powered super carrier after 2023.

The building of the warship has two positive effects: One is that Turkey is modernizing in ship engineering. The second one is that our Naval Forces will belong to the super league. Nuclear ships and aircraft carriers are regarded as the super league. See http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/president-erdogan-always-asked-me-two-things.aspx?PageID=238&NID=98638&NewsCatID=508


Erdogan said that the LPD program would hopefully be the first step toward producing a “most elite” aircraft carrier. Then he upped Turkey’s naval ambitions.

“I see it as a major deficiency that we still do not have a nuclear vessel,” he said. See http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2016/05/06/turkey-setting-sails-big-naval-ambitions/83961760/


Now lets look at all the preparation leading up to the above leaks about aircraft carriers (whether pocket LHD carriers or supercarriers).

Turkey has been quietly acquiring foreign military bases in Qatar (Naval wing), Somalia (Naval wing), Albania (Naval wing), the Republic of Georgia, and Azerbaijan: See http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/01/21/turkey-foreign-military-bases-and-their-threat-to-stability.html

Turkey has also been developing advanced naval surface combatants which can be used as carrier escorts: the MILGEM class corvette, the TF-2000 Destroyer (probably the most ambitious ship), I-class Frigates, TCG Bayraktar class Landing Ships etc, MILDAR submarines.

Turkey (in conjunction with an Australian company) began mining Uranium in Turkey. Today, Turkey is home to Europes first Uranium mine: http://www.na.srk.com/en/newsletter/srk-40th-anniversary/europe-1st-uranium-mining-turkey

Turkey also began investing heavily in nuclear energy technology including enrichment: http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/content/turkeys-nuclear-aspirations

Turkey began indigenously producing the T-129 Attack helicopters, T-70 TUHP (Licence produced Sikosrky S-70i with Turkish sub-systems) etc See https://www.tai.com.tr/en/project/turkish-utility-helicopter
Turkey acquired CH-47F heavy transport helicopters (Chinooks): See http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/27/turkey-expects-ch-47f-deliveries-soon/82325138/

MILGEM Class Corvette- See http://navalanalyses.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/ada-class-corvettes-of-turkish-navy.html for detailed anatomy of MILGEM Class
Image

I-class Frigate

Image

TF-2000 class AAW Destroyer (7700 Tons)- See http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2728
Image

Now you will be asking how is Turkey financing all this? The answer is quite simple. During the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation summit in Istanbul this year, it was resolved that the organisation would create an "Islamic Military Alliance" and an "Islamic Interpol". Turkey was charged with the wholesale modernization of the 53 member nations Armed Forces. Saudi Arabia and the other 53 nations would also share the financing of the Turkish military projects and in return Turkey would sell the same to other member nations. This way the alliance could get technology that other nations are unwilling to supply. E.g. armed drones.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2016, 01:22
by zerion
Wow! I didn't know they were so ambitious. Thanks. :D

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2016, 06:49
by tincansailor
If Turkey really engages in a military buildup on this scale it's neighbors won't be sitting idly by. Greece, Iran, Egypt, Bulgaria, Israel, and Russia won't be asleep on watch. Even fellow NATO allies will regard that kind of buildup with great anxiety. For what reason would Turkey deploy major naval forces to the Indian Ocean? The Persian Gulf? If they don't want atomic bombs why would they start a Uranium mining, and enrichment program? Borrowing a page from Iran? Just what threat is Turkey defending against? Do they need all that to crush the Kurds?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2016, 07:47
by airforces_freak
tincansailor wrote:If Turkey really engages in a military buildup on this scale it's neighbors won't be sitting idly by. Greece, Iran, Egypt, Bulgaria, Israel, and Russia won't be asleep on watch. Even fellow NATO allies will regard that kind of buildup with great anxiety. For what reason would Turkey deploy major naval forces to the Indian Ocean? The Persian Gulf? If they don't want atomic bombs why would they start a Uranium mining, and enrichment program? Borrowing a page from Iran? Just what threat is Turkey defending against? Do they need all that to crush the Kurds?


Aside from the fact that the Turks are really paranoid after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, they now also perceive significant threats from global powers such as Russia. Turkish Intelligence has also confirmed overt Western Support for secessionist groups in Turkey.

It is also not primarily Turkey. It is the Islamic World generally- The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to be precise under the leadership of Turkey. The OIC now has its own Military (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Military_Alliance), Police (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/662192/Muslim-states-agree-plan-crack-down-terror-ISIS) and Central Bank (http://aa.com.tr/en/turkey/turkey-to-host-islamic-megabank-dep-pm-simsek/570411). Although, everything is at the infancy stage, we are seeing a reemergence of Turkey under neo-Ottimanism. And looking at the region ISIS etc this may not be a bad thing. The Turks know very well how to keep the Middle East in line. There is also nothing preventing Turkey from transitioning from being a middle power to a global actor. The Turkic world (which Turkey is de facto leader) has 300 million people. The Islamic world has 1.7 billion. In fact, George Friedman from Stratfor states that Turkey will be one of the next superpowers:
[YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWM8EYUJc3Y[/YouTube]

Turkey now has its own space agency, Uranium mines, nuclear enrighment and energy technology ventures, ballistic missiles technology, an advanced indigenous arms industry which can design and produce MBT's, Armed UAV's, Destroyers, LHD's, Landing Craft, Regional Aircraft, Attack Helicopters etc

The following are a good read on the topic:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /78733576/

http://wmdjunction.com/121102_turkey_ba ... ssiles.htm

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2016, 16:10
by blindpilot
tincansailor wrote:If Turkey ...If they don't want atomic bombs why would they start a Uranium mining, and enrichment program? ....


You do know that Turkey has 60 nukes right now yes? Just like Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Italy. True the US keeps the key, but if war comes, and certainly if it goes nuke, the bombs are given to the Turks, just like the others. Saudi Arabia should also similarly be considered a Nuke State, even though "its weapons," would have to be shipped in from Pakistan. The only other difference with SA is that they don't train/practice handling, loading - AND delivering the nukes, like the NATO states do. Yep you heard right. The Turkish Air Force trains dropping nukes on an enemy today.

I imagine Turkey considers those nukes theirs ... well because they are. There is some ambiguity as to when the keys are given, but the Russians for example would be reckless, if they imagined that a conventional invasion of Turkey wouldn't trigger them getting their nukes right away. The vagueness on these NATO protocols is intentional. I am certain Russia expects the keys to pass the moment their troops cross the border ... or at least they should.

BP

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2016, 17:18
by blindpilot
blindpilot wrote:
tincansailor wrote:If Turkey ...If they don't want atomic bombs why would they start a Uranium mining, and enrichment program? ....


You do know that Turkey has 60 nukes right now yes? ... I am certain Russia expects the keys to pass the moment their troops cross the border ... or at least they should.

BP


I would point out that when Putin throws his naked little man chest out swinging his nuclear arsenal about, there is some behind the scene diplomacy that happens, which is usually not seen. example: US Ambassador might say, "O my you are so scary attacking Georgia, and have poor peaceful Romania which is a NATO state, trembling in their boots... You know this is just too messy for us peaceful Americans .. I think if Romania squealed, we might accidentally think Article Five and just give the Nuke Keys to Turkey to let them sort out the Black Sea issues ... you're so scary .. I hope they don't shoot down your planes ... oops! oh yeah, they already did that, those crazy Turks .. my bad.. Anyway we'll give the crazy Turks who shot down your plane the Nuke keys, and let them sort it out. I hear their president is a very reasonable guy."

Now the above is a translation of what is actually said with polite manner, and some of this is done with subtle actions, and not words ... but make no mistake the translation above is an accurate one of the diplomaspeak sometimes used. And Turkey does have nukes, and soon stealth bombers. A couple of aircraft carriers isn't that much of an equation changer.

FWIW
BP

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2016, 19:05
by tincansailor
blindpilot wrote:
tincansailor wrote:If Turkey ...If they don't want atomic bombs why would they start a Uranium mining, and enrichment program? ....


You do know that Turkey has 60 nukes right now yes? Just like Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Italy. True the US keeps the key, but if war comes, and certainly if it goes nuke, the bombs are given to the Turks, just like the others. Saudi Arabia should also similarly be considered a Nuke State, even though "its weapons," would have to be shipped in from Pakistan. The only other difference with SA is that they don't train/practice handling, loading - AND delivering the nukes, like the NATO states do. Yep you heard right. The Turkish Air Force trains dropping nukes on an enemy today.

I imagine Turkey considers those nukes theirs ... well because they are. There is some ambiguity as to when the keys are given, but the Russians for example would be reckless, if they imagined that a conventional invasion of Turkey wouldn't trigger them getting their nukes right away. The vagueness on these NATO protocols is intentional. I am certain Russia expects the keys to pass the moment their troops cross the border ... or at least they should.

BP


Just as you state the nuclear bombs are under American control, and maintenance. The American's own the nukes not the Turks. They would not be released to Turkish control the moment Turkey was attacked. Russia no longer even has a common border with Turkey to launch a land invasion from. Turkish and NATO forces would have little trouble repelling a Russian attack from sea or air. A Russian Missile attack with conventional warheads wouldn't provoke nuclear retaliation. You'd have to be out of your mind to do that.

"The First Use Doctrine" was at a time when the Warsaw Pact had a theoretical ability to send thousands of tanks over the inter-German Border. Between Soviet logistical weakness, and the proliferation of ATGM that threat lessened in the 1980s. Using nuclear weapons is a suicidal act because it would invite retaliation in kind. That's why poison gas wasn't used in WWII because neither side thought it would give them an advantage, only invite retaliation.

Nuclear weapons have two rational purposes. First to deter anyone from using WMD on you, and as a threat if a nation's existence is threatened. Since WWII those conditions have not been met, so nukes have never been used. Some close calls, but they have never been used. Only if Turkey were nuked would the U.S. let Turkey it's self use nukes. If Turkey had it's own nukes, as opposed to being under the American Umbrella would raise tensions in the region triggering a nuclear arms race. Not a wise idea at all.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2016, 00:31
by blindpilot
tincansailor wrote:...

Just as you state the nuclear bombs are under American control, and maintenance. The American's own the nukes not the Turks. .... Some close calls, but they have never been used. Only if Turkey were nuked would the U.S. let Turkey it's self use nukes. If Turkey had it's own nukes, as opposed to being under the American Umbrella would raise tensions in the region triggering a nuclear arms race. Not a wise idea at all.


Actually if you remember the SALT talks the Russians repeatedly complained, "Do you think we are stupid!?" and were very concerned with "European Nukes" and that wasn't just the Brits and French. In fact there is still tension in the world of non-proliferation over the nature and character of the shared nukes. But the point I am making is that Turkey already has the second largest military in NATO, A couple carriers is not earthshaking. The continued growth and capabilities in their military and tech industry is not new.

As to threats facing Turkey ... let's see ... to the East is Iran, South is Assad and civil war, North is the Black Sea with "Russian" Crimea and troops trampling around Georgia. And west? well ... their NATO Ally has shot down one of their F-16s, and crashed into another in the last decade or so ... no problems that way, I guess. :) A case could be made that Turkey is in the most hostile neighborhood of any country in the world.

I think there is a bit more than "little old ISIS".

BP

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2016, 04:59
by tincansailor
blindpilot wrote:
tincansailor wrote:...

Just as you state the nuclear bombs are under American control, and maintenance. The American's own the nukes not the Turks. .... Some close calls, but they have never been used. Only if Turkey were nuked would the U.S. let Turkey it's self use nukes. If Turkey had it's own nukes, as opposed to being under the American Umbrella would raise tensions in the region triggering a nuclear arms race. Not a wise idea at all.


Actually if you remember the SALT talks the Russians repeatedly complained, "Do you think we are stupid!?" and were very concerned with "European Nukes" and that wasn't just the Brits and French. In fact there is still tension in the world of non-proliferation over the nature and character of the shared nukes. But the point I am making is that Turkey already has the second largest military in NATO, A couple carriers is not earthshaking. The continued growth and capabilities in their military and tech industry is not new.

As to threats facing Turkey ... let's see ... to the East is Iran, South is Assad and civil war, North is the Black Sea with "Russian" Crimea and troops trampling around Georgia. And west? well ... their NATO Ally has shot down one of their F-16s, and crashed into another in the last decade or so ... no problems that way, I guess. :) A case could be made that Turkey is in the most hostile neighborhood of any country in the world.

I think there is a bit more than "little old ISIS".

BP


Yes blindpilot your right about the agreements on nuclear forces in Europe. That is what the Russians said. On the other hand who was going to start this war with all these nukes being tossed around? Who's basic war plan called for attacking on all fronts? It was an interesting failure of Soviet Foreign Policy that every none Soviet Nuclear Weapon in the world was pointed at them.

Consequently their arms control position was that they should be allowed to have more nuclear weapons then the rest of the world combined. In the conventional arena their strategy was that for them to feel safe they had to be able to overrun Western Europe, and China at the same time. So for them to feel safe everyone else had to be completely vulnerable. That is not a rational national security policy.

None of the countries you listed that surround Turkey have the capacity to invade their territory. The Greeks are not going to invade Eastern Thrace, or land on the Aegean coast, to reconstitute the Byzantine Empire. The Greeks were ethnically cleansed from Western Anatolia more then 90 years ago. Iraq is a failed state, so is Syria. The Kurds are an internal problem, the Armenians were destroyed. Russia has no common border, so they couldn't launch a land invasion even if they wanted to. Russian forces in the Black Sea have limited offensive capabilities. What could they do, land 5,000 men at the Golden Horn? Constantinople at last.

As you point out Turkey has the largest NATO Army in Europe, and they have a major arms industry. Their also part of the strongest military alliance in history. Just who has an offensive force threatening their borders? You can't just use the Russian method of counting up the forces of all their neighbors and say we have to be able to overwhelm all of them at the same time. A paranoid defense policy is expensive, and counter productive. It frightens people.

4 light carries may not be intimidating to the USN, but none of their neighbors can compete with that. If they do build a CVN that would be a game changer. According to conventions Big Carriers can't pass through the Turkish Straights into the Black sea. Russia would react badly if a Turkish CVN did enter. Especially since these carrier would be flying F-35Bs, everyone would consider them first strike weapons. Just what are all these ships for? It sounds like Wilhelmine Germany building Battleships to intimidate Britain into becoming a friend. How did that work out?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2016, 05:02
by airforces_freak
blindpilot wrote:
tincansailor wrote:If Turkey ...If they don't want atomic bombs why would they start a Uranium mining, and enrichment program? ....


You do know that Turkey has 60 nukes right now yes? Just like Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Italy. True the US keeps the key, but if war comes, and certainly if it goes nuke, the bombs are given to the Turks, just like the others. Saudi Arabia should also similarly be considered a Nuke State, even though "its weapons," would have to be shipped in from Pakistan. The only other difference with SA is that they don't train/practice handling, loading - AND delivering the nukes, like the NATO states do. Yep you heard right. The Turkish Air Force trains dropping nukes on an enemy today.

I imagine Turkey considers those nukes theirs ... well because they are. There is some ambiguity as to when the keys are given, but the Russians for example would be reckless, if they imagined that a conventional invasion of Turkey wouldn't trigger them getting their nukes right away. The vagueness on these NATO protocols is intentional. I am certain Russia expects the keys to pass the moment their troops cross the border ... or at least they should.

BP


Turkey in fact has 90 B-61 Mod 12 Nukes based at Incirlik AF base under JOINT Turkish-American control.They are earmarked for delivery by TuAF F-16 Block 50+ upon final approval from NATO command.

HOWEVER, aside from the above Turkey is also a de facto nuclear weapons State because it has more access to Pakistani Nukes than Saudi Arabia. After all, the Turks are the ones that supplied the centrifuges to Pakistan in order to enrich weapons grade Urainium.

The German BND has also gone further and said Turkey has its own indigenous weapons program. Add to this the J-600T Yıldırım Ballistic missile family produced by Turkey's Roketsan which can carry nuclear warheads and you have alot of question marks. See http://nationalinterest.org/feature/turkey-secretly-working-nuclear-weapons-13898

Turkey recently also increased the range of its SOM Precision strike Stand-off cruise missile to 2,500 km. You would note Lockheed Martin of the US is working with Turkey to develop the SOM-J for the F-35 derived from the SOM.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2016, 05:11
by airforces_freak
tincansailor wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
tincansailor wrote:...

Just as you state the nuclear bombs are under American control, and maintenance. The American's own the nukes not the Turks. .... Some close calls, but they have never been used. Only if Turkey were nuked would the U.S. let Turkey it's self use nukes. If Turkey had it's own nukes, as opposed to being under the American Umbrella would raise tensions in the region triggering a nuclear arms race. Not a wise idea at all.


Actually if you remember the SALT talks the Russians repeatedly complained, "Do you think we are stupid!?" and were very concerned with "European Nukes" and that wasn't just the Brits and French. In fact there is still tension in the world of non-proliferation over the nature and character of the shared nukes. But the point I am making is that Turkey already has the second largest military in NATO, A couple carriers is not earthshaking. The continued growth and capabilities in their military and tech industry is not new.

As to threats facing Turkey ... let's see ... to the East is Iran, South is Assad and civil war, North is the Black Sea with "Russian" Crimea and troops trampling around Georgia. And west? well ... their NATO Ally has shot down one of their F-16s, and crashed into another in the last decade or so ... no problems that way, I guess. :) A case could be made that Turkey is in the most hostile neighborhood of any country in the world.

I think there is a bit more than "little old ISIS".

BP


Yes blindpilot your right about the agreements on nuclear forces in Europe. That is what the Russians said. On the other hand who was going to start this war with all these nukes being tossed around? Who's basic war plan called for attacking on all fronts? It was an interesting failure of Soviet Foreign Policy that every none Soviet Nuclear Weapon in the world was pointed at them.

Consequently their arms control position was that they should be allowed to have more nuclear weapons then the rest of the world combined. In the conventional arena their strategy was that for them to feel safe they had to be able to overrun Western Europe, and China at the same time. So for them to feel safe everyone else had to be completely vulnerable. That is not a rational national security policy.

None of the countries you listed that surround Turkey have the capacity to invade their territory. The Greeks are not going to invade Eastern Thrace, or land on the Aegean coast, to reconstitute the Byzantine Empire. The Greeks were ethnically cleansed from Western Anatolia more then 90 years ago. Iraq is a failed state, so is Syria. The Kurds are an internal problem, the Armenians were destroyed. Russia has no common border, so they couldn't launch a land invasion even if they wanted to. Russian forces in the Black Sea have limited offensive capabilities. What could they do, land 5,000 men at the Golden Horn? Constantinople at last.

As you point out Turkey has the largest NATO Army in Europe, and they have a major arms industry. Their also part of the strongest military alliance in history. Just who has an offensive force threatening their borders? You can't just use the Russian method of counting up the forces of all their neighbors and say we have to be able to overwhelm all of them at the same time. A paranoid defense policy is expensive, and counter productive. It frightens people.

4 light carries may not be intimidating to the USN, but none of their neighbors can compete with that. If they do build a CVN that would be a game changer. According to conventions Big Carriers can't pass through the Turkish Straights into the Black sea. Russia would react badly if a Turkish CVN did enter. Especially since these carrier would be flying F-35Bs, everyone would consider them first strike weapons. Just what are all these ships for? It sounds like Wilhelmine Germany building Battleships to intimidate Britain into becoming a friend. How did that work out?


With regards to the Turkish Straits and the Turkish CVN
Turkey has commenced the construction of Canal Istanbul which aims to negate/by-pass the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits and attain greater autonomy with respect to the passage of military ships from the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara.

With regards to the possible use of F-35's on the Turkish CVN
Turkey will most likely use a carrier variant of the TFX it is developing with BAE Industries (fuselage) and Ukraine (Engine).

Turkey has the largest NATO Army in Europe
I don't think the Turkish Armed Forces just have a significant army. Their Navy dwarfs that of a lot of European powers and they have some really advanced surface combatants and submarines. Their own ATMACA anti-ship missile also has twice the range of the Harpoon!

With regards to motives for fielding CVN's
Turkey has significant investments and interests in Africa. They also have a military presence in Somalia. Without a doubt Turkey has blue water ambitions.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2016, 05:18
by airforces_freak
It seems as though Turkish Naval Engineers have also closely examined British carriers when they were purchased for scrapping by Turkish yards. So the Turks are serious about carrier technology.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rrier.html

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2016, 08:02
by gideonic
airforces_freak wrote:It seems as though Turkish Naval Engineers have also closely examined British Catapult systems and carriers when they were purchased for scrapping by Turkish yards. So the Turks are serious about carrier technology.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rrier.html

Turks managed to steal Catapult technology by scrapping an Invincible class carrier? :shock:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2016, 08:18
by airforces_freak
gideonic wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:It seems as though Turkish Naval Engineers have also closely examined British Catapult systems and carriers when they were purchased for scrapping by Turkish yards. So the Turks are serious about carrier technology.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rrier.html

Turks managed to steal Catapult technology by scrapping an Invincible class carrier? :shock:


Hmm the Invincible class does not have catapults so the sources must be bogus. I retract the previous comments.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2016, 20:00
by tincansailor
airforces_freak wrote:It seems as though Turkish Naval Engineers have also closely examined British carriers when they were purchased for scrapping by Turkish yards. So the Turks are serious about carrier technology.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rrier.html


Very interesting information. So if the Turks build a canal around Istanbul it would be ok to send Carriers into the Black Sea because they wouldn't have to pass trough the Bosporus? That's a neat legal trick that Russia would surly appeal to the world court. Actually Russia would most likely take more direct action then that. I just don't see how deliberately antagonizing Russia would strengthen Turkey's strategic position in the world.

Russian & Turkey have major commercial relations that might suffer as a result. Building military forces to challenge another nation when no conflict existed before only ties those forces down. Yes I know Russia and turkey have a long history of wars, but neither nation has threatened the other for decades. Is it worth a conflict over who's client state Syria will be? What does it gain Turkey to antagonize it's neighbors? Just a few years ago Turkey was looking for a grand alliance with Iran, and Egypt, now their on the outs with both.

Big Deck Carriers, nuclear capable intermedium range ballistic and cruise missiles, a nuclear program, and an alliance with Pakistan to share nuclear weapons. What are they aiming for? To be the first country to be kicked out of NATO? Despite all these ambitious offensive minded activities they seem unable to take action to stop ISIS rocket attacks on their country, or move troops into Syria to create a Safe Zone. The only thing they seem to be willing and able to do is fight the Kurds.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2016, 08:02
by airforces_freak
tincansailor wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:It seems as though Turkish Naval Engineers have also closely examined British carriers when they were purchased for scrapping by Turkish yards. So the Turks are serious about carrier technology.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rrier.html


Very interesting information. So if the Turks build a canal around Istanbul it would be ok to send Carriers into the Black Sea because they wouldn't have to pass trough the Bosporus? That's a neat legal trick that Russia would surly appeal to the world court. Actually Russia would most likely take more direct action then that. I just don't see how deliberately antagonizing Russia would strengthen Turkey's strategic position in the world.

Russian & Turkey have major commercial relations that might suffer as a result. Building military forces to challenge another nation when no conflict existed before only ties those forces down. Yes I know Russia and turkey have a long history of wars, but neither nation has threatened the other for decades. Is it worth a conflict over who's client state Syria will be? What does it gain Turkey to antagonize it's neighbors? Just a few years ago Turkey was looking for a grand alliance with Iran, and Egypt, now their on the outs with both.

Big Deck Carriers, nuclear capable intermedium range ballistic and cruise missiles, a nuclear program, and an alliance with Pakistan to share nuclear weapons. What are they aiming for? To be the first country to be kicked out of NATO? Despite all these ambitious offensive minded activities they seem unable to take action to stop ISIS rocket attacks on their country, or move troops into Syria to create a Safe Zone. The only thing they seem to be willing and able to do is fight the Kurds.


With regards to Canal Istanbul and Turkey's Sovereignty see the following article which summarizes the situation very well: "Kanal Istanbul: Within 7 Years US Aircraft Carriers Will Enter the Black Sea": http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/en/2015/12/21/kanal-istanbul-within-7-years-us-aircraft-carriers-will-enter-the-black-sea/ Turkey has full sovereignty over its territory including but not limited to artificial waterways that transverse such territory. Turkey is also a Black Sea State and thus no one can put any limits on the number of vessels it has in the Black Sea. Of interest to you, one of the Shipyards building such vessels are located on the shores of the Black Sea.

Turkey and Russia now have minimal economic relations after the shooting down of the Russian fighter. The problem between Turkey and Russia is not over the shooting down of one jet or in fact Syria. The tension is broader and due to an overlap of geo-strategic interests. Russia wants more influence in the Mediterranean, Middle East and Balkans. Turkey is saying stay out of my backyard.I would go further and State that Turkey's current interest vis-a-vis Russia overlap with those of the West.

Turkey was never looking for a grand alliance with Iran and Egypt. Turkey was merely following a Turkey-centric foreign policy. The reality is that Turkey is now an independent actor like the UK and France. It puts its strategic interests before any others.

N.B. NATO decisions are made on the basis of consensus not majority vote.

Turkey is bombing ISIS with long range artillery and more recently with Armed UAV Fleets. TuAF no longer operate in Syria due to relations with Russia and NATO's decision not to escalate the situation. Coalition forces utilize Turkish bases for 80% of operations against DAESH.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2016, 10:15
by tincansailor
With regards to Canal Istanbul and Turkey's Sovereignty see the following article which summarizes the situation very well: "Kanal Istanbul: Within 7 Years US Aircraft Carriers Will Enter the Black Sea": http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/en/2015/12/21/kanal-istanbul-within-7-years-us-aircraft-carriers-will-enter-the-black-sea/ Turkey has full sovereignty over its territory including but not limited to artificial waterways that transverse such territory. Turkey is also a Black Sea State and thus no one can put any limits on the number of vessels it has in the Black Sea. Of interest to you, one of the Shipyards building such vessels are located on the shores of the Black Sea.

Turkey and Russia now have minimal economic relations after the shooting down of the Russian fighter. The problem between Turkey and Russia is not over the shooting down of one jet or in fact Syria. The tension is broader and due to an overlap of geo-strategic interests. Russia wants more influence in the Mediterranean, Middle East and Balkans. Turkey is saying stay out of my backyard.I would go further and State that Turkey's current interest vis-a-vis Russia overlap with those of the West.

Turkey was never looking for a grand alliance with Iran and Egypt. Turkey was merely following a Turkey-centric foreign policy. The reality is that Turkey is now an independent actor like the UK and France. It puts its strategic interests before any others.

N.B. NATO decisions are made on the basis of consensus not majority vote.

Turkey is bombing ISIS with long range artillery and more recently with Armed UAV Fleets. TuAF no longer operate in Syria due to relations with Russia and NATO's decision not to escalate the situation. Coalition forces utilize Turkish bases for 80% of operations against DAESH.[/quote]

Very interesting analysis. I would only differ on two points. At the time that the Muslim Brotherhood was ruling Egypt Turkey was seeking a grand alliance with Egypt and Iran. This was at the same time Erdogan sent ships to brake the Israeli blockade of Gaza. He broke his alliance with Israel, and was looking elsewhere. When you say he is following a Turkish centric policy just what does that mean? Going your own way, and picking fights? He's at odds with Egypt now because he still supports the Brotherhood. He want's an Islamist Regime in Syria. Erdogan's heavy handed diplomacy has damaged relations with Russia. Turkey is now diplomatically isolated.

After The fall of the Soviet Union Turkey was hoping to replace Russia as the diplomatic, and economic patron of the Turkic people of Central Asia. That has not worked out to well. Russia is still the dominate power in the region. It seems Russia still has more to offer them then Turkey does. Now that policy would have caused a rivalry with Russia, but the potential advantages that kind of coup could have afforded would have been worth the risks.

Having failed to enter Europe, failed in central Asia, broken with both Israel, and Egypt, playing a double game with ISIS, renewed the conflict with their own Kurds, and on bad terms with Russia what good has this Turkish Centric Policy accomplished? So after doing so well at making friends, and increasing their influence surly a massive arms buildup will further improve relations with their neighbors.

The whole point of the Turkish Straights Conventions was to keep capital ships from outside of the region from altering the balance of power in the Black Sea. It was never conceived that Turkey would posses aircraft carriers. Russia regards the Black Sea as their strategic backyard. Their reaction to a Turkish CVN in the Black Sea would be a massive arms build up, and increasingly aggressive behavior. What will Turkey gain from such a provocative move? Asserting themselves is not an end in it's self. NATO has no interest in being dragged into a conflict in the Black Sea.

It may have been a mistake to let Turkey participate in the F-35 program. If they plan to share military technology with the rest of the Islamic World while poking a stick in the eye of Russia and their other neighbors we may live to regret letting them have stealth technology. We shouldn't want our allies to create conditions for conflict, especially when we can't even understand what they hope to gain from them.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2016, 11:37
by airforces_freak
tincansailor wrote:
With regards to Canal Istanbul and Turkey's Sovereignty see the following article which summarizes the situation very well: "Kanal Istanbul: Within 7 Years US Aircraft Carriers Will Enter the Black Sea": http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/en/2015/12/21/kanal-istanbul-within-7-years-us-aircraft-carriers-will-enter-the-black-sea/ Turkey has full sovereignty over its territory including but not limited to artificial waterways that transverse such territory. Turkey is also a Black Sea State and thus no one can put any limits on the number of vessels it has in the Black Sea. Of interest to you, one of the Shipyards building such vessels are located on the shores of the Black Sea.

Turkey and Russia now have minimal economic relations after the shooting down of the Russian fighter. The problem between Turkey and Russia is not over the shooting down of one jet or in fact Syria. The tension is broader and due to an overlap of geo-strategic interests. Russia wants more influence in the Mediterranean, Middle East and Balkans. Turkey is saying stay out of my backyard.I would go further and State that Turkey's current interest vis-a-vis Russia overlap with those of the West.

Turkey was never looking for a grand alliance with Iran and Egypt. Turkey was merely following a Turkey-centric foreign policy. The reality is that Turkey is now an independent actor like the UK and France. It puts its strategic interests before any others.

N.B. NATO decisions are made on the basis of consensus not majority vote.

Turkey is bombing ISIS with long range artillery and more recently with Armed UAV Fleets. TuAF no longer operate in Syria due to relations with Russia and NATO's decision not to escalate the situation. Coalition forces utilize Turkish bases for 80% of operations against DAESH.


Very interesting analysis. I would only differ on two points. At the time that the Muslim Brotherhood was ruling Egypt Turkey was seeking a grand alliance with Egypt and Iran. This was at the same time Erdogan sent ships to brake the Israeli blockade of Gaza. He broke his alliance with Israel, and was looking elsewhere. When you say he is following a Turkish centric policy just what does that mean? Going your own way, and picking fights? He's at odds with Egypt now because he still supports the Brotherhood. He want's an Islamist Regime in Syria. Erdogan's heavy handed diplomacy has damaged relations with Russia. Turkey is now diplomatically isolated.

After The fall of the Soviet Union Turkey was hoping to replace Russia as the diplomatic, and economic patron of the Turkic people of Central Asia. That has not worked out to well. Russia is still the dominate power in the region. It seems Russia still has more to offer them then Turkey does. Now that policy would have caused a rivalry with Russia, but the potential advantages that kind of coup could have afforded would have been worth the risks.

Having failed to enter Europe, failed in central Asia, broken with both Israel, and Egypt, playing a double game with ISIS, renewed the conflict with their own Kurds, and on bad terms with Russia what good has this Turkish Centric Policy accomplished? So after doing so well at making friends, and increasing their influence surly a massive arms buildup will further improve relations with their neighbors.

The whole point of the Turkish Straights Conventions was to keep capital ships from outside of the region from altering the balance of power in the Black Sea. It was never conceived that Turkey would posses aircraft carriers. Russia regards the Black Sea as their strategic backyard. Their reaction to a Turkish CVN in the Black Sea would be a massive arms build up, and increasingly aggressive behavior. What will Turkey gain from such a provocative move? Asserting themselves is not an end in it's self. NATO has no interest in being dragged into a conflict in the Black Sea.

It may have been a mistake to let Turkey participate in the F-35 program. If they plan to share military technology with the rest of the Islamic World while poking a stick in the eye of Russia and their other neighbors we may live to regret letting them have stealth technology. We shouldn't want our allies to create conditions for conflict, especially when we can't even understand what they hope to gain from them.


(1) Turkey's relations with Israel did not deteriorate solely due to the Mavi Marmarra crisis. Turkish-Israeli relations had declined due to Israel making some moves in Cyprus over Leviathan gas fields. This resulted in several tit-for-tats with Israel- the low chair incident, the Mavi Marmarra being just 2 highly publicized events. Despite the world not recognizing the sovereignty of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus- Turkey does. Nevertheless, relations with Israel are back to normal as both Turkey and Israel currently have bigger fish to fry. Turkey and Israel have also agreed to jointly benefit from the Cypriot Oil reserves. A pipeline between Turkey and Israel is also on the drawing boards as we speak. Turkey is also acting as an intermediary between Hamas (Political wing) and Israel. Hamas & Israel are actually working together against ISIS. The dispute between Turkey and Israel was never religious (as was the case with Iran and Israel) or territory related (Arab-Israeli conflict). It was interest related.
(2) Turkey has not failed in Europe. In fact, Turkey has gained a lot of influence in the EU. Turkey has absolutely not failed in Central Asia. Two major pipelines which guarantee Europe's energy requirements have been completed thanks to Turkey's leadership. Google BTC and TANAP. With regards to Egypt: Turkey has an issue with US sponsored Coup's. Erdogan is worried the US may sponsor a coup in Turkey. It has nothing to do with the Muslim brotherhood despite popular belief. It also had a lot to do with Erdogan obtaining the Arab public vote.
(3) Turkey has not renewed the "fight with its Kurds". It has determined not to bow to secessionist groups such as the Marxist-Leninist PKK.
(4) Turkey also regards the Black Sea as its backyard. Turkey will not allow others to dictate what Turkey can or cannot do on its soil. And this is what I mean by Turkey-centric foreign policy.
(5) Turkey is a Level 3 partner in the JSF program and has also contributed to its design and development. The US is also getting cheap but Advanced labor through sub-contracts with Turkish industry. Roketsan of Turkey has also provided its SOM Stand-off cruise missile technology to Lockheed Martin which would be used in the internal carriage way of the F-35.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2016, 09:16
by airforces_freak
The Model of TCG Anadolu confirms that the Turkish Light Carrier will operate 6 F-35B (and is convertible to accommodate further 6 in Light Carrier Strike mode)

Image
Image
Image

Preliminary Specifications:

Length overall: 231 meters
Maximum beam: 32 meters
Draught: 6.8 meters
Height: 58 meters
Maximum speed: 21 knots
Range: 9,000 miles @ economical speed
Electric propulsion with 2x 11 MW Siemens eSIPOD; 5x MAN 16V32/40 Diesel GenSets and 2x bow thrusters
Complete hospital and sick bay

Combat systems:
Genesis Advent CMS with amphibious and joint operations capability
Link 11/16/22/JRE/VMF
1x SMART-S Mk2 3D Search Radar
2x LPI radars
2x Navigation radars
1x Air traffic and control radar
1x PAR radar
4x 25mm Aselsan STOP
3x 12.7mm Aselsan STAMP
2x Raytheon Phalanx CIWS
Aselsan R-ESM
Aselsan jammers
Chaff/IR Decoy launching system
Aseslan TORK torpedo countermeasure system
IRST
HF/VHF/UHF and satellite communication systems

Amphibious capacity and force projection:
Garage for heavy loads: 1410 m² (MBTs, AAVs, TEU containers...)
Dock: 1165 m² (4x LCMs or 2x LCACs)
Light cargo garage: 1880 m² (AAVs, ZPTs, TEU containers...)
Aviation hangar: 900 m² (S-70B, AW-149, CH-47 etc.)
Flight Deck: 5440 m² (6 landing spots)

A CVN design Turkey is exploring:

Image

The LST's developed by Turkey and being commissioned in large numbers:


Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2016, 10:14
by KamenRiderBlade
When you split the conning tower into two parts, doesn't one part affect the radar search capabilities by being in the way unless the radar is mounted extra high?

Isn't that a huge disadvantage?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2016, 18:09
by tincansailor
Again what is the purpose of building all these ships? And how does Turkey expect it's neighbors to react to all this? Being more assertive, or just saying you have a sovereign right to do something doesn't make it a wise idea to do it.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2016, 22:08
by delvo
They can't seriously plan on wasting resources putting something like that in the Black Sea. It would never get far enough away from Turkish land to hit targets that couldn't be hit by F-35As from bases on the land, and that wouldn't require investing in either the difference in purchase price between B and A, or the cost of the ship, or the difference in logistics & support between a ship and a base.

So the idea must be to set out west or south along the Mediterranean or Red Sea...

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2016, 03:27
by tincansailor
delvo wrote:They can't seriously plan on wasting resources putting something like that in the Black Sea. It would never get far enough away from Turkish land to hit targets that couldn't be hit by F-35As from bases on the land, and that wouldn't require investing in either the difference in purchase price between B and A, or the cost of the ship, or the difference in logistics & support between a ship and a base.

So the idea must be to set out west or south along the Mediterranean or Red Sea...


Your 100% correct delvo. The Black Sea is a bathtub. The USN gets very nervous putting CVNs into the Persian Gulf. A CVN is within range of many Iranian airbases, shore based anti-ship missile batteries, and light naval units. A Turkish CVN would face far stronger Russian forces in the Black Sea that could attack from several directions. Even the carries fleet base is well within the range of Russian tactical air, and missile forces, with minimal warning time.

In time of conflict a Turkish CVN in the Black Sea would be a rapidly perishing asset. It would have to get out of port and attack on day one, because it's going to be drawing a lot of fire. Again as you say it can't really do anything land based Turkish air units couldn't do just as well, from dispersed airfields. In peace time all it does is raise tensions with Russia.

So as you say it cruises around the Med giving Turkey power projection capability into North Africa. Going to the Red Sea, or Indian Ocean is a fleet looking for a mission. Turkish logistics would depend on good relations with Egypt which aren't to hot right now, not accepting the legitimacy of the current government and all. Basing in the Persian Gulf serves what strategic objective? Opening a naval front against Iran?

A country with a $1.2 Trillion GDP, about 2/3 of Italy's is building a CVN? They want the strongest fleet in the Med? What for? Who are they expecting to fight? Should Greece, Italy, Egypt, and Spain start building up their naval forces? Should the US 6th Fleet put a CVN back in the Med?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2016, 04:51
by airforces_freak
The CVN (a Light Carrier for now) will be based at the Turkish Naval base in Mogadishu, Somalia. It's primary role would be to secure Turkey's Sea lines of communication form the Indian Ocean into the Mediterranean. It's secondary role would be humanitarian assistance in Africa. The African Union and Turkey have a Strategic Agreement signed in 2014.

A Light Carrier will also be based in Pasha Liman Base, Albania, another Turkish base.

I do not believe Turkey's light carriers, CVN or LCT's will remain in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean permanently. Turkey's Black Sea Fleet is sufficient to counter any threats from that end. The MILGEM class corvette's, i-Class Frigates and 1, Tf-2000 AAW Destroyer in the Black Sea is more than sufficient to counter Russian threats. Add to this the vast array of land-based long-range anti-ship missiles (ATMACA) to be permanently stationed on the shores of the Black Sea in conjunction with land-based MULTIFUNCTION PHASED ARRAY RADAR SYSTEMs (Derivative of CAFRAD- See http://blogs.plymouth.ac.uk/dcss/2015/0 ... -system-2/ ) and Turkey does not have much to worry about.

As for the Motives for Turkey acquiring such advanced platforms...DETERRENCE & it also shows that Turkey is inching towards re-assuming the leadership of the Turkic & Islamic worlds as was foreseen by Stratfor some months ago. The Turkic world is energy rich and supplies 80% of Europes energy needs via pipelines trans-versing Turkey. BTC and TANAP are 2 strategic pipelines for Europe. Turkey wants to show the Turkic and Islamic worlds that hey "im a big boy again come under my wings". After all, Turkey's EU bid is a lost cause and Turkey also now presumes the West is seeking to partition Eastern Turkey and create an independent Kurdish State.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2016, 06:06
by airforces_freak
More details about the Turkish Navy's Somalia detachment/base:

It will be based at the site of the new Turkish Embassy in Mogadishu which is basically the Old Mogadishu Port site:

Image
Image
Image

Some Embassy buildings have already been built at the Port site:

Image
Image

Turkey is also building the Largest East Africa Airport in Mogadishu which will be jointly used by the Turkish Air Force.

Image

Opening of the Airport:

Image

A good introduction to how Turkey entered Somalia:


Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2016, 16:52
by spazsinbad
On page 38 of this thread there is some 'back & forth' (argy bargy) with 'tincansailor' about Oz LHDs with Oz F-35Bs.... Anyhoo I had the time to find the original post from two years ago here viewtopic.php?f=58&t=25587&p=272529&hilit=Admiral+Ramp#p272529 repeated below for clarification on the small LHD improvements.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
02 Jun 2014 - Estimates - DEFENCE PORTFOLIO

"...CHAIR: Who is next? Senator Conroy. [• Shadow Minister for Defence from 18.10.13 & Deputy Leader of the Opposition [Labor Party] in the Senate.]

Senator CONROY: Regarding the new LHDs, a couple of weeks ago The Australian reported that the Prime Minister has, 'Instructed planners working on his Defence white paper to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 of the short take-off and vertical landing version of the JSFs—the F-35B—on to the ships.' Are you familiar with that article, Vice Admiral Griggs?

Vice Adm. Griggs : I am.

Senator CONROY: Has the Navy been asked to provide any input to this possibility?

Vice Adm. Griggs : What is happening is that the whole issue of short or vertical take-off aircraft is being considered as part of the force structure review and the white paper process. We will participate in that, as will Air Force. I welcome that.

Senator CONROY: Thanks for coming to the table. How much modification will be needed to modify the LHDs to launch, land and carry the JSF B variants? Air Marshal Brown might want to comment on—

Vice Adm. Griggs : No, he probably does not.

Air Marshal Brown : Depends on your answer.

Vice Adm. Griggs : There has been some work already done, and it was done during the 2008-09 force structure review white paper process, to understand what the implications would be. It largely revolves around ablative coating on the flight deck because of the heat generated from the F35-B. It relates to fuel storage and fuel lines. It relates to amendments or modifications we would have to make to magazines on the ships to take the weapons that support the F35-B, and there are other aspects like some of the classified compartments that we would need to make sure existed to support the mission system for the F35-B. I think I have covered most of the issues. [At last some clarification]

Senator CONROY: You mentioned storage, planes equipment, fuel, munitions and support crew. Can you just outline what those changes would need to be? Where are we up to with the LHDs? Where are they being put together?


Vice Adm. Griggs : In Williamstown.

Senator CONROY: I thought so. I saw it on the weekend. I live in Williamstown, as you probably remember. What sort of changes in storage for the actual planes, or the equipment, fuel, munitions, and support crew would you need to make? Because for being put together they seem to be a fairly long way down the track right now.

Vice Adm. Griggs : The ship—

Senator CONROY: Yes.

Vice Adm. Griggs : Canberra will deliver some time in the third quarter of this year, probably around September.

Senator CONROY: It looked in pretty good shape.

Vice Adm. Griggs : So, it is not that far away. We have to, obviously, do some more work on this, because I would say this has been a fairly superficial examination up until now because there has not been a serious consideration of this capability going into the ship.

Senator CONROY: Air Marshal Brown, did you ask for this capability? Did the Air Force request this?

Air Marshal Brown : Like all things, when you have a new white paper you should always examine all sorts of options. It was not something that Air Force has particularly pushed. I would just like to add to Vice Admiral Griggs's modifications required to the ship. One of the big issues with having fixed wing aeroplanes come back onto a ship is you have actually got to get them back in poor weather. So, there would be new radars required on the ship as well as instrument landing systems. So, there will be some extensive modifications around that.

Gen. Hurley : I think the start point of this, as Vice Admiral Griggs has pointed out, is there is the need—if we look at the phases we go through, there are needs and then requirements. We are starting at what are the requirements, that is, how do we adapt the ship and what does a ship that launches vertical take-off aircraft look like. There are two parts to the Prime Minister's request. One is to drive it back to see how would this fit into the force structure of the future, how would it meet the needs of the future and so forth, and then we would do the prioritisation, stack it up against other needs and so forth into the future—they come out of the white paper. Once you have gone through all that, if you were to say, 'Okay we need to have this type of capability and we are going to now go through what that would cost and then what the opportunity costs are', then we will go down and say, 'Okay, how would you modify a ship to put this capability in?' That would be part of that costing process. It is a number of steps to actually get to that detailed questioning you are asking at the moment.

Senator CONROY: I appreciate that, General Hurley. I am simply going on a newspaper article that bobbed up and seeking to establish for the committee an understanding of what would be involved in making that sort of change right now. We are a fair way down getting the strike fighters, we are a fair way down of—last time I looked on the weekend, it was getting more impressively large and to suddenly throw a curveball in like this at relatively the last minute—I appreciate we do have things in the pipeline—it just seemed like an odd thing to do.

Mr Richardson : Could I just add—

Senator CONROY: Mr Richardson, join us.

Mr Richardson : It is a reasonable question about that option, and it is being examined in the context of the force structure review.

Senator CONROY: Are you able to take this on notice? Air Marshal Brown indicated radars would be an extensive change. Vice Admiral Griggs described some. Are there any other changes to the structure of the ship? You mentioned the deck; obviously that makes sense.

Air Marshal Brown : I will just defer to the secretary, I think there is a lot.

Senator CONROY: Does the deck need to be reinforced or is it just a paint job?

Air Marshal Brown : There is a lot of—

Senator CONROY: A special paint, but an application.

Air Marshal Brown : There is a lot of work to be done conceptually before we get to that stage, so it would be a little speculative to just give you a list of modifications to the ship at this stage.

Vice Adm. Griggs : I think we have given you a sense of the sort of things that we have—

Senator CONROY: Would there be different personnel, training, aircraft maintenance or pilots needed in the circumstance? I see you are nodding there. Is there anything that you can tell us on that?

Air Marshal Brown : I think it is early days as to how much. There certainly would be differences in training as to how much that would require. There would be issues that we would have to go through. There would be a different logistics system as well for that aeroplane so, again, a fair bit of work to go through.

Senator CONROY: It has been a long time since the Navy had a ship capable of launching aircraft. What sort of organisational changes would you need to make to carry that capability out today? Would they be operated by Navy pilots or Air Force pilots? Who would own them?

Gen. Hurley : I would own them.

Senator CONROY: That goes without saying that the CDF would own them. I am just interested if there was going to be a dogfight there, no pun intended.

Gen. Hurley : No, I am trying to stop one. We need to go back to the processes that we have in place with the white paper force structure review and look at the place of a capability in this. Those types of questions that you are asking are long-term questions. For us to speculate whether we have a new fleet air arm that is bigger which now has fixed wing capabilities to strike off a carrier looking aeroplane, frankly it is just too early. We are not anywhere near that mode. Although they are interesting and intriguing questions and will keep our younger people very busy around the coffee table at the moment, they are pure speculation.

Senator CONROY: Our Prime Minister is tricky like that. You have got to watch him.

Gen. Hurley : It is pure speculation.

Senator CONROY: I am quoting the Prime Minister's leak to The Australian. I have not double-checked but I am willing to bet it said exclusively.

Gen. Hurley : I think we are in the situation where new governments come in. There has been a white paper evolving for a while. We have had a platform that is about to come into the service which is essentially based around delivering an amphibious capability built around ship-to-shore, which is helicopter borne and the small boats from the well of the ship. The Prime Minister has a view about a capability that he thinks might be relevant to the ADF. He has asked us to look at that. We have a process in place at the moment that will allow us to have a look at that and, depending where we come out on that process, we would then go into all of those technical decisions about the nature of ship and force structure implications for the ADF. I do not want to touch it yet until I know whether I am going to have one.

Senator CONROY: Minister, you just cannot take your eye off that Prime Minister, can you? He is just full of good ideas.

Senator Johnston: I think you might concede the Prime Minister is interested in exploring options. He wants a versatile, capable ADF and there is no harm in exploring with the experts what the options are. I think that is perfectly normal and natural and he should certainly not be criticised for it.

Senator CONROY: I was just saying that you have got to keep your eye on him every minute. He keeps jumping in there on you. Can I just clarify—and I appreciate the point you are making, General Hurley, that no-one has actually made a decision about it, but just for the purpose of the committee understanding what it would mean if you were to go down that path, without going into too much detail—the discussion relates to the fourth operational squadron of JSFs purchased in addition to the existing 72 which are already on order. When is the last of those 72 expected to be delivered to Australia?

Air Marshal Brown : We expect the last of the JSFs in that tranche in 2022.

Senator CONROY: When is the second LHD expected to enter service?

Vice Adm. Griggs : 2016.

Senator CONROY: So if we were to choose to proceed with the purchase of any B-variant JSFs as a fourth operational squadron they would likely come into service well after both of the current LHDs enter service. Is that correct?

Gen. Hurley : That would be correct
.

Senator CONROY: That would seem to be the case?

Senator Johnston: You would think so.

Senator CONROY: I was at Forgacs in Newcastle recently and I had the 1-3-8 rule explained to me. It was said that if something cost $1 to build on the workshop floor at a facility like Forgacs that it would cost $3 to build once these blocks have been combined and it would cost $8 to do it once you are working inside the whole of a commissioned Navy vessel. Does that sound about right?

Vice Adm. Griggs : There is no doubt it costs more to modify them to design and to build, yes.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I thought it was 1-2-5.

Senator CONROY: Maybe they are already gilding the lily on me. They are buttering me up in advance. With that in mind, does it seem like a sensible financial decision to make significant alterations to the LHDs once they are well into their operational lives within the Navy fleet?

Mr Richardson : We are not at that point.

Senator CONROY: But if you were to make that decision? They are in the water in 2016.

Mr Richardson : We are not at that point. The first step is part of the force structure review. Anything beyond that is speculative at this point.

Senator CONROY: This is just like two plus two equals four. If the ships are already in the water it costs more to adapt them to a new Air Force purchase if we make a new Air Force purchase.

Mr Richardson : Of course it does.

Senator CONROY: Depending on whether it is an Air Force or a Navy purchase in that sense?

Mr Richardson : Yes.

Senator CONROY: That is just maths?

Mr Richardson : That is right.

Senator CONROY: It is not about the high level. That is what you would be thinking about when you would be having a conversation in the Defence white paper?

Mr Richardson : Yes, that is right.

Senator CONROY: Would it make more sense to buy or build a purpose built light aircraft carrier to act as a platform for any future JSF B-variants? This is not just a backdoor way to sneak an aircraft carrier into the game, is it?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That is certainly hypothetical.

Mr Richardson : It is.

Senator CONROY: I am saying that it is going to cost a lot more to make the changes. You would be the first vice admiral to have an aircraft carrier on your watch for a while.

Mr Richardson : You are getting way ahead of where we are at.

Mr King : The ships are in service for 35 years. In the course of their life, requirements of them change and all the matters that have been raised like costs and amount of change, the national interest is considered in doing that. It is true that there is a different cost after you enter service, but if it is in the national interest and that is a cheaper way to get a capability—and I am referring to the general ship modifications—then that is what a country does, but it is a long way off such a decision.

Senator CONROY: How much do you think it would cost to modify the LHDs to accommodate the variant?

Mr Richardson : We are not prepared to speculate on anything like that in advance of having done the work.

Senator CONROY: The Prime Minister's office has put that into the public domain.

Mr Richardson : We are not prepared to speculate. The Prime Minister has not speculated on that.

Senator CONROY: I said that the Prime Minister's office has put that into the public domain.

Mr Richardson : I do not believe the Prime Minister's office speculated on costs. You are asking us to speculate on costs before we have done any work, and it would be inappropriate for us to do so.

Senator CONROY: I will ask you a technical question rather than a cost question. Would an LHD modified to operate as a launching platform for the JSF also be able to operate as an amphibious vessel as well?

Vice Adm. Griggs : Yes, but there are trade-offs that you would have to make.

Senator CONROY: Would it still be possible to load the same number of helicopters and landing craft that are planned for the existing LHDs?

Gen. Hurley : It is just impossible to answer that question because we do not know whether (a) we will have the platform, (b) what modifications are actually required and (c) what would be the change to capabilities to the ship.

Senator CONROY: We do know a few things, though.

Gen. Hurley : To be very honest, we cannot answer questions of that nature. That is just asking us to do the impossible.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: The better question might be whether there are any other LHD type vessels around the world that have been built by Spain or anyone else that have a fixed wing aircraft take-off capability?

Vice Adm. Griggs : The LHD that we have?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Yes. Is any other navy using it as an aircraft carrier?

Vice Adm. Griggs : The Spanish do.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Do they?

Vice Adm. Griggs : They use it as part of the mix of their aircraft that they have.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: What sort of aircraft do they run off?

Vice Adm. Griggs : AV-8B Harriers.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: The English jump jet?

Vice Adm. Griggs : The jump jet.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Do they jump them off or do they fly them off?

Vice Adm. Griggs : They ramp them off the ramp.

Senator CONROY: Thank you, Senator MacDonald. With all due respect, General Hurley, there are some things that are fixed and, as Vice Admiral Griggs indicated, there are trade-offs so the question is: is it possible to load the same number of helicopters and landing craft if you have joint strike fighters on board? That is short of doubling the size which you cannot do because it is a fixed size—

Gen. Hurley : I do not know. No-one at the table knows and no-one at the table should be asked to speculate on it. I do not know.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That is purely hypothetical and not under the rules of estimates.

Senator CONROY: You are not actually chairing it, Senator MacDonald.

CHAIR: Can we have some order?

Gen. Hurley : I do not even know. It depends what sort of mix of helicopters. Do you want CH-47s and Tigers and MRH-90s? What does the mix look like? What are you going to substitute? What are you going to carry for a particular mission?

Senator CONROY: Perhaps you did not hear the end of my question. I talked about being planned, so you actually know what you have planned for the existing—

Gen. Hurley : We know what mixes are possible but we do not know what changes to the ship would be required; therefore, how would we know which helicopters we cannot carry and what impact that would have on the operation?

Senator CONROY: We can play a sillier game and say: could you squeeze some joint strike fighters in with all of the existing material that you have planned to be on them at the moment?

Gen. Hurley : I do not know because I do not know what is required to put a STOVL onto the LHD.

Senator CONROY: I am sure that Vice Admiral Griggs could help us. Could you squeeze a joint strike fighter—

Gen. Hurley : Vice Admiral Griggs will not answer the question. I will answer the question, Senator. You are asking us to speculate on something we have no idea about.

CHAIR: Senator Conroy, the witnesses have made it very clear several times that they are not prepared to speculate, and I think you should respect that....

...Senator CONROY: Are you looking forward to having a joint strike fighter plonked in the middle of it?

Lt Gen. Morrison : I think that all of the answers that you have been given from this side of the estimates table about joint strike fighters do not need any additions from me.

Senator CONROY: It sounds like it might get in the way of your group. It is not like you have asked for it. Air Marshal indicated they did not ask for it; Admiral Griggs has indicated that he has not asked for it and from the sound of it you have not asked for it. 'Abbott aims for aircraft carriers' is the headline. I am just trying to get an understanding of what is involved in that. Thank you for that. I am happy to pass over to someone else, Chair, if there is anyone else. I have more questions in this area but if someone else wanted to jump in; Senator MacDonald is always keen....

...Senator EDWARDS: Thank you for the clarification on those matters...."

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee 02 Jun 2014 - Estimates - DEFENCE PORTFOLIO

Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... %2F0002%22

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2016, 14:40
by spazsinbad
Taiwan plans to build LHD
19 Jun 2016 Alert5

"Taiwan’s Deputy Defense Minister Pai Hunghui told legislators that the Republic of China Navy will initiate a tender this year to build an amphibious assault ship that comes with a straight deck for helicopter operations...." [& wot else?]

Source: http://alert5.com/2016/06/20/taiwan-pla ... more-54331

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2016, 19:01
by airforces_freak
And its official. Speculation about Turkey's intention to commission CVN's has now been officially confirmed. The Turkish Republic will design, develop, produce and commission a Super Carrier after the commissioning of TCG Anadolu (Turkey's Light Aircraft carrier being produced jointly by SEDED and NEVATIA), that is in 2021.

Erdogan: Turkey will produce own aircraft carrier soon
http://navaltoday.com/2016/06/20/erdogan-turkey-will-produce-own-aircraft-carrier-soon/

Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced Saturday that Turkey would produce its own aircraft carrier “soon”.

Speaking at the opening ceremony of the Istanbul Naval Shipyard, Erdogan commented that Turkey would face no obstacles in constructing an aircraft carrier domestically as the nation’s defense industry has grown more and more independent from foreign technology and imports.

The president added that the carrier would most likely be built after the Turkish amphibious assault ship is completed.

Based on the Spanish Navy’s landing helicopter dock (LHD) Juan Carlos I and designed by Navantia, the Turkish version of the ship will be named TCG Anadolu and have the pennant number L-408.

First steel on the ship, which will be registered as a light aircraft carrier by the Turkish Lloyd, was cut in May 2016 while delivery is scheduled for 2021.


Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2016, 21:17
by bojack_horseman
airforces_freak wrote:And its official. Speculation about Turkey's intention to commission CVN's has now been officially confirmed. The Turkish Republic will design, develop, produce and commission a Super Carrier after the commissioning of TCG Anadolu (Turkey's Light Aircraft carrier being produced jointly by SEDED and NEVATIA), that is in 2021.



Meh....
We'll believe it when we see it.

The Turkish dictator says a lot, but time will tell.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2016, 22:01
by spazsinbad
Post says 'aircraft carrier' NOT CVN (nuclear powered) - probably a CV is possible. Once the LHD was thought 'not possible'.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2016, 23:12
by arian
airforces_freak wrote:The CVN (a Light Carrier for now) will be based at the Turkish Naval base in Mogadishu, Somalia. It's primary role would be to secure Turkey's Sea lines of communication form the Indian Ocean into the Mediterranean. It's secondary role would be humanitarian assistance in Africa. The African Union and Turkey have a Strategic Agreement signed in 2014.

A Light Carrier will also be based in Pasha Liman Base, Albania, another Turkish base.


This is all, to put it mildly, complete fabrication, nonsense, and fantasy.

I'm not sure if these are official Turkish government fantasies, or simply internet fantasies. But they are fantasies (if they are official Turkish gov. fantasies, that would be really sad. But then again, for internal consumption and vote-winning purposes, I can see them doing it)

Exhibit A) The "CVN" model is actually the model build by a Russian shipyard for Russia's supposed next generation of carriers. The model is carrying PAK-FAs and MiG-29s for God's sake.

Exhibit B) There is no Turkish naval base in Mogadishu or Pasha Liman. Turkey has agreements which allow it to stop military ships at these ports, agreements which are quite common around the world. There is no agreement for any sort of permanent placement of any military ships, nor has anything of the sort been done.

In Pasha Liman, there is no way to moore anything above a corvette. In fact, the agreement to allow Turkish military ships to stop (not base!) in Albania is about the port of Vlora, not Pasha Liman. The port of Vlora is the civilian port a few miles away. Turkish ships could never moore at Pasha Liman anyway since it has none of the requirements for doing so. Mogadishu is bigger, but again, there's no place or depth for anything of the sort.

The only visits by Turkish ships have been as part of NATO operations (in Vlora as exercises), or as part of international missions (anti-piracy in Mogadishu), and always along with other ships from other countries taking part in these operations (well except for once in 2014 for a 1 day visit along a 27 country tour).

Exhibit C) The Turkish company that is going to upgrade the port at Mogadishu is a purely civilian project to deepen the container port from 6m depth to 9m depth, put in some new cranes, new container handling equipment etc. And to build a gas and oil terminal in Mogadishu. Nothing to do with military projects or deployments, and certainly no "base". Pasha Liman is in even worst position. There's never been any "upgrades" or "rebuilds" as claimed on the net by the Turks. If anything, the place has been used mainly by the Greeks and Italians. No Turkish ship has ever sailed there, and the place is mostly used as a Damen Stan shipyard now.

Putting even a frigate, even at the future updated port of Mogadishu, would pretty much take up the whole space at the port. Assuming a carrier could sail into Pasha Liman is absurdity of the highest order. A corvette would be too big for that place.

There is some serious nonsense floating around the web.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2016, 23:31
by spazsinbad
Yeah - but ... how to tell the difference?
"...There is some serious nonsense floating around the web."

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2016, 03:23
by airforces_freak
bojack_horseman wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:And its official. Speculation about Turkey's intention to commission CVN's has now been officially confirmed. The Turkish Republic will design, develop, produce and commission a Super Carrier after the commissioning of TCG Anadolu (Turkey's Light Aircraft carrier being produced jointly by SEDED and NEVATIA), that is in 2021.



Meh....
We'll believe it when we see it.

The Turkish dictator says a lot, but time will tell.


But you conveniently forget that WE ARE actually seeing many high tech indigenous platforms being launched by the Turks. Please show me one project that has not materialized? The 3rd MILGEM corvette/Light Frigate was launched just yesterday. They have also developed many high tech and advanced sub-systems to be used in their Tf-2000 AAW Destroyers (CAFRAD Radar similar to AN/SPY 1). Building Corvettes/Frigates/Destroyers/LHD/LCM/LST are much harder than aircraft carriers.

"The Turkish dictator"? Do you know the meaning of dictatorship? The man has been ELECTED by majority vote in free elections supervised by the UN on 5 elections. Sisi on the other hand came to power by coup and is heralded as a democratic President. In the US we have a handful of families dominating elections. Either the Bush or Clinton family more recently. The reality is the Turkish President is highly ambitious and strategic in his thinking and he is rattling alot of feathers.

We are seeing the rise of a new power right before our noses. The Islamic Military Alliance under Turkish Leadership was dismissed as being theatrics but we are seeing significant evidence that the Turks are developing high tech weapons with petro-cash and then selling these to Islamic countries. The Turks are currently negotiating for the sale of MALE Armed UAV's to many Islamic countries.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2016, 10:18
by bojack_horseman
airforces_freak wrote:Please show me one project that has not materialized?


TFX.

And calling a spade a spade, Turkey is no more a democracy than Russia.

The god king at the top "wins" his election.... but there is more to democracy than that.
A democrat doesn't incarcerate journalists they don't like....
A democrat doesn't shut down media they don't like....

As your boy said: only last month.
In a speech to local politicians in Ankara, he criticised critics raising concern over Turkey’s record on “democracy, freedom and rule of law”....

“For us, these phrases have absolutely no value any longer,” he said in the televised address...

“Those who stand on our side in the fight against terrorism are our friend. Those on the opposite side, are our enemy.”

On Monday, the President had vowed to extend the legal definition of “terrorists” to include MPs, activists and journalists.

“It is not only the person who pulls the trigger, but those who made that possible who should also be defined as terrorists, regardless of their title,” Mr Erdogan said.

ergo: Anyone the little Sultan disagrees with is an enemy of the state.
That's some democracy your boy is making right there :wink:

And lets be honest here... this does not bode well for the advanced technologies needed for creating and operating a carrier...

If one was to draw a graph plotting one axis as "decent into islamist dictatorship" & the other axis as "technological progression".... well, any reader knows that those two lines would just grow further apart!

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2016, 12:55
by airforces_freak
bojack_horseman wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:Please show me one project that has not materialized?


TFX.

And calling a spade a spade, Turkey is no more a democracy than Russia.

The god king at the top "wins" his election.... but there is more to democracy than that.
A democrat doesn't incarcerate journalists they don't like....
A democrat doesn't shut down media they don't like....

As your boy said: only last month.
In a speech to local politicians in Ankara, he criticised critics raising concern over Turkey’s record on “democracy, freedom and rule of law”....

“For us, these phrases have absolutely no value any longer,” he said in the televised address...

“Those who stand on our side in the fight against terrorism are our friend. Those on the opposite side, are our enemy.”

On Monday, the President had vowed to extend the legal definition of “terrorists” to include MPs, activists and journalists.

“It is not only the person who pulls the trigger, but those who made that possible who should also be defined as terrorists, regardless of their title,” Mr Erdogan said.

ergo: Anyone the little Sultan disagrees with is an enemy of the state.
That's some democracy your boy is making right there :wink:

And lets be honest here... this does not bode well for the advanced technologies needed for creating and operating a carrier...

If one was to draw a graph plotting one axis as "decent into islamist dictatorship" & the other axis as "technological progression".... well, any reader knows that those two lines would just grow further apart!


(1) Military projects have timelines. The 2-year conceptual design phase for the TFX was completed in partnership with Saab AB on time and as planned back in 2013. TAI is now in the development phase of the TFX and has teamed up with BAE Systems of the United Kingdom. TAI intends to field the TFX by 2023. Hence, the program is on track. Especially if we look at the sub-systems that Turkey is developing for its TFX program. The Aselsan AESA is in development, the AVCI Helmet Mounted Cuing system has already entered serial production, the ASELPOD has entered mass production etc.

(2) I don't usually make political statements on this forum but your conception of a democracy is grossly flawed. There is a spectrum of democracies across the globe. Each has its unique structures and flaws. No democracy is perfect. I would like to however draw your attention to the fact that Turkey's highest judicial organ is the European Court of Human Rights. The EcHR is not solely composed of Turkish Judges. I would go further and state that Turkey's Seperation of Powers is stronger than that of the United States. After all, the Turkish Government has no sway over the EcHR and it is staunchly independent of the Turkish State. If there are any aggrieved parties such as true Journalists they can quite simply appeal to the EcHR. I am sure their European friends will gladly assist them. Thats had Turkey been imprisoning Journalists at whim, International Judicial processes would prevent it from doing so. Yes you can have thousands of Media reports about curtailment of press freedoms but this does not necessarily state the facts. You would recall that French Le Monde Journalist Madame Florence Hartmann is currently in solitary confinement at a Hague prison for contempt of Court. She was not immune from prosecution despite being a journalist. So why should journalists in Turkey overtly supporting terrorism be immune?

(3) Turkey was an Islamic theocracy at the height of its power when it was home to the seat of the Imperial Ottoman Government. Hence, your Islamophobic rant that Turkey cannot reach technological advancement due to your perceived notion that Turkish is sliding into an "Islamic dictatorship" is grossly erroneous. In fact, contrary to what you assert, it is President Erdogan's policy of neo- pax Ottomana that is driving technological advancement in Turkey: OIC member country petro-cash that is funding all these projects.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2016, 06:55
by bojack_horseman
airforces_freak wrote:No democracy is perfect


And few do as farcical a job at pretending it's a democracy as Turkey....
In today's news, the worlds most thin-skinned "democrat"...lol is directing his ire at 1 university professor
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-erdogan-president-academic-sacked-dismissed-insulting-leader-academic-freedom-a7093146.html#commentsDiv
Because....
In Turkey it is against the law to insult Turkish government officials and institutions. Those who do so could face a prison sentence of up to two years.

.... as everyone knows, this is the hallmark of a healthy democracy :mrgreen:
Luckily I'm sitting here in a free country, so your boy's storm-troopers won't be kicking in my door!
And I haven't even gotten onto your lad's 2-faced support for islamist terror, but I'm happy to.

But, you know.... all hail the glorious Recep & his head-hacking buddies....
Bless those who sail in her (as you say)... CVNs!

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2016, 14:50
by airforces_freak
First contingent of 200 Turkish Troops have been transferred to the Turkish Military Base in Mogadishu, Somalia.
http://www.garoweonline.com/en/news/som ... in-somalia
http://aa.com.tr/en/africa/turkey-to-op ... lia/656335

Image
Image
Image

As part of the deal between Somalian and Turkish Government, the Naval base will also have Somalian Naval vessels gifted by Turkish shipyards.

Image

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2016, 12:13
by tincansailor
airforces_freak wrote:First contingent of 200 Turkish Troops have been transferred to the Turkish Military Base in Mogadishu, Somalia.
http://www.garoweonline.com/en/news/som ... in-somalia
http://aa.com.tr/en/africa/turkey-to-op ... lia/656335

Image
Image
Image

As part of the deal between Somalian and Turkish Government, the Naval base will also have Somalian Naval vessels gifted by Turkish shipyards.

Image


Somalia is now in good hands. I expect now that with Turkish help the government in Mogadishu will exert it's control over the whole country which will end the scourge of piracy. The unemployed fisherman who became pirates will now become Turkish trained marines, who will destroy the Islamic Terrorists based in Somalia. After that a Turkish/Somali Navy will establish a new order in the India Ocean, teaching the Chinese, the Indian's, and the USN who the big kid on the block is.

I'm so glad Turkey is progressing in it's development as the "Arsenal of Islam". Using the Ottoman Turks as an imperial example will certainly allay any fears at home or abroad. I'm also sure arresting terrorist teachers will send the right message. At This point I'm sure you'll agree Turkey no longer needs the F-35, or any other American, or Western Imperialist military assistance.

Allying with Russia is the answer to all Turkey's troubles. All they have to do is kiss and make up with Assad and they can kill Kurds till their hears content. I read the other day about Turkish forces defending the borders from Arminian Aggression. Wow, the last time they had to do that was 1915. Won't those nasty Armenians ever learn not to provoke the righteous anger of the Turkish People? With Russia's help that threat could be dealt with once and for all.

I'm not sure what the question was but I'm sure Turkey is the answer. It's the rising new/old power. Bigger, better, smarter then before, with a genius for a leader. He was popularly elected to, and you better say nice things about him or else. I can hardly wait for the next American President to meet with Erdogan so he can explain to them that the real source of instability in the ME is the Kurdish drive for independence.

The situation would seem so clear if we could only see the world through Erdogan's eyes. Turkey as both the Shield, and Sword of Islam is a good thing. Pesky disloyal media is bad. One man holding executive control of a national government for 15 years is a good thing, criticism is not. A good media is lined up behind the national leader, like in Russia. The job of the media is to reflect the will of the people freely expressed in their election of the leader, and his party. The values of a secular society are best protected by voting for an Islamist Party.

Wow, the fact we can't see it all when it's this clears shows what a "Mad, mad, mad, mad World" it really is.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2016, 19:49
by arian
Just base to train Somali soldiers. The rest is fantasy.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2016, 07:48
by lookieloo
Quite the troll thread going on here. Moderators could easily delete the past several pages.

Anyhoo... Seems the Italians are about to start modifications for bee ops on the Cavour, which is probably the most elegant example of a purpose-built STOVL light carrier. https://warisboring.com/italy-is-preppi ... rce=latest

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2016, 09:03
by spazsinbad
Glad we are back on topic. Of all the half truths and distortions and KILOnewtons in that CAVOUR WiB article above I like the last paragraph. OMG are Italians THAT SLOW?! Only time will tell I guess....
"...Italy wants its F-35Bs to be combat-ready by 2023. Cavour will need to be ready for the new planes before then."

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2016, 02:23
by lookieloo
Carriers often require modifications to operate heavier aircraft. Modifications take time. There's not much else to say.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2016, 02:50
by spazsinbad
Six or Seven Years? HMAS Melbourne was heavily modified to take much heavier S-2E/Gs and A4Gs in less than two years. Some exaggeration for CAVOUR F-35B modifications methinks. So sure - we won't know until the SLOW Italians are done.
HMAS Melbourne (R21)
Wikipedia

"...Refits
Early in her career, Melbourne underwent a series of short annual refits, commencing in September and ending in January or February of the next year. As time passed, the refits increased in duration or replaced by major upgrades or overhauls.

Melbourne's first major refit started in December 1967 and continued until February 1969, during which she was upgraded to operate S-2 Tracker and A-4 Skyhawk aircraft. The modifications cost A$8.5 million, and included an overhaul of the hull and machinery, strengthening of the flight deck, improvements to the catapult and arrestor cables, modification of the aviation fuel systems and flight control arrangements, and upgrades of the navigational aids and radar. Air conditioning systems and a liquid oxygen generation plant were also installed. Melbourne re-entered service at the conclusion of the refits on 14 February, and performed sea trials in Jervis Bay from 17 February until 5 May. This was the largest project undertaken by Garden Island Dockyard to that date...."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)

Italian aircraft carrier Cavour
Wickipedia

"...Laid down: 17 July 2001
Launched: 20 July 2004
Commissioned: 27 March 2008
In service: 10 June 2009...

...The Italian Navy will replace its 16 Harriers with 15 (originally 22) Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II within the next few years. The F-35B schedule is uncertain at the moment[when?], but it is planned to modify Cavour to support the F-35B by 2016. Cavour will have room for ten F-35Bs in the hangar, and six more parked on deck.

Construction
Cavour was laid down by Fincantieri in June 2001, and she was launched from the Riva Trigoso shipyard in Sestri Levante, on 20 July 2004. Sea trials began in December 2006, and she was officially commissioned 27 March 2008. Full operational capability (FOC) was reached 10 June 2009...."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_a ... ier_Cavour

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2016, 04:35
by SpudmanWP
Remember that Italy is buying both the F-35A and F-35B. They might not be buying the B for a few years so there is no hurry to get the carrier ready.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2016, 07:27
by airforces_freak
bojack_horseman wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:And its official. Speculation about Turkey's intention to commission CVN's has now been officially confirmed. The Turkish Republic will design, develop, produce and commission a Super Carrier after the commissioning of TCG Anadolu (Turkey's Light Aircraft carrier being produced jointly by SEDED and NEVATIA), that is in 2021.



Meh....
We'll believe it when we see it.

The Turkish dictator says a lot, but time will tell.


Do you know the definition of the term "dictator"?

Oxford Dictionary definition of the term dictator: A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
Western definition of the term: Any elected non-Western leader who does not bow to Western dictates. Non-Western elected leaders who are usually declared "dictator"'s by perception managers of the Western intelligence apparatus prior to overthrow by force e.g. Egypt, Tunisia, South American States etc

If you want to talk about dictatorships perhaps we should question the super-delegate system and how the Bush and Clinton families continuously have a role in US Government.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2016, 07:38
by airforces_freak
spazsinbad wrote:Post says 'aircraft carrier' NOT CVN (nuclear powered) - probably a CV is possible. Once the LHD was thought 'not possible'.


Spazsinbad- I wouldn't bother addressing their ad hominem attacks. They are not even bothering to read my posts or the facts presented.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2016, 04:20
by tincansailor
airforces_freak wrote:
bojack_horseman wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:And its official. Speculation about Turkey's intention to commission CVN's has now been officially confirmed. The Turkish Republic will design, develop, produce and commission a Super Carrier after the commissioning of TCG Anadolu (Turkey's Light Aircraft carrier being produced jointly by SEDED and NEVATIA), that is in 2021.



Meh....
We'll believe it when we see it.

The Turkish dictator says a lot, but time will tell.


Do you know the definition of the term "dictator"?

Oxford Dictionary definition of the term dictator: A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
Western definition of the term: Any elected non-Western leader who does not bow to Western dictates. Non-Western elected leaders who are usually declared "dictator"'s by perception managers of the Western intelligence apparatus prior to overthrow by force e.g. Egypt, Tunisia, South American States etc

If you want to talk about dictatorships perhaps we should question the super-delegate system and how the Bush and Clinton families continuously have a role in US Government.


A dictator is a leader who creates a rigged system where no opposition can form. If you control the media, and no one can criticize elected officials without being arrested democracy is smothered. It's a bit paranoid to think that the whole Arab Spring was a series of Western controlled coups. Do you think the people of Egypt didn't get rid of Mubarak? Do you think 26 million Egyptians came out into the streets to get rid of Morsi because a guy from the CIA was giving out $5 Bills?

You really have very little understanding of American Politics. Political parties are private organizations, not government entities. Hillary disgusts me, but she got the democratic nomination because she got more votes then Sanders. The democrats showed a dearth of talent in 2016. You will notice that Jeb Bush got blown out of the running despite the amount of money he was able to raise.

Dynastic politics are pretty common around the world, but not in America. The Clinton Bush phenomena is an aberration. We've only had 4 families in our whole history who held the White House twice. It's highly unlikely that Chelsea Clinton will ever run for president, so you don't need to trouble yourself on that score. Things don't look so good for the Bush's ether.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2016, 20:30
by airforces_freak
tincansailor wrote:
A dictator is a leader who creates a rigged system where no opposition can form. If you control the media, and no one can criticize elected officials without being arrested democracy is smothered. It's a bit paranoid to think that the whole Arab Spring was a series of Western controlled coups. Do you think the people of Egypt didn't get rid of Mubarak? Do you think 26 million Egyptians came out into the streets to get rid of Morsi because a guy from the CIA was giving out $5 Bills?

You really have very little understanding of American Politics. Political parties are private organizations, not government entities. Hillary disgusts me, but she got the democratic nomination because she got more votes then Sanders. The democrats showed a dearth of talent in 2016. You will notice that Jeb Bush got blown out of the running despite the amount of money he was able to raise.

Dynastic politics are pretty common around the world, but not in America. The Clinton Bush phenomena is an aberration. We've only had 4 families in our whole history who held the White House twice. It's highly unlikely that Chelsea Clinton will ever run for president, so you don't need to trouble yourself on that score. Things don't look so good for the Bush's ether.


Turkey is a Parliamentary Constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law. The highest Judicial organ is the European Court of Human Rights mostly composed on non-Turks. Turkey is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR thus the UN can at anytime investigate any alleged Human Rights abuses in Turkey. Now you mention freedom of press. Media are not a Constitutional arm of Government. They are equal before the law. If they conduct terrorist propaganda they will be shut down. If they advocate for the overthrow of a democratically elected Government by force: they will be shut down. There are many examples of this throughout Europe. In fact, Germany more recently shut down a Turkish-German newspaper citing disruption to social cohesion. Just like the US will not allow any US media company to become a mouth piece for ISIS Turkey will not allow any Turkish media organisation to become a mouth piece for the PKK.

You mention a rigged system but do not elaborate. You would recall the Turkish elections were supervised by many supra-national entities and the UN. Turkish Opposition party members are also present at all polling booths when the counting and collection of votes occurs. Just like any Western democracy. On 15 July a faction of the Turkish Armed Forces sought to overthrow the elected Government. The Turkish people from all walks of life and political demonisations protested the move and re-instated their elected Government to power. In light of the aforementioned any attempt to still question the legitimacy of the Government is ill-intentioned.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2016, 22:32
by botsing
airforces_freak wrote:
tincansailor wrote:
A dictator is a leader who creates a rigged system where no opposition can form. If you control the media, and no one can criticize elected officials without being arrested democracy is smothered. It's a bit paranoid to think that the whole Arab Spring was a series of Western controlled coups. Do you think the people of Egypt didn't get rid of Mubarak? Do you think 26 million Egyptians came out into the streets to get rid of Morsi because a guy from the CIA was giving out $5 Bills?

You really have very little understanding of American Politics. Political parties are private organizations, not government entities. Hillary disgusts me, but she got the democratic nomination because she got more votes then Sanders. The democrats showed a dearth of talent in 2016. You will notice that Jeb Bush got blown out of the running despite the amount of money he was able to raise.

Dynastic politics are pretty common around the world, but not in America. The Clinton Bush phenomena is an aberration. We've only had 4 families in our whole history who held the White House twice. It's highly unlikely that Chelsea Clinton will ever run for president, so you don't need to trouble yourself on that score. Things don't look so good for the Bush's ether.


Turkey is a Parliamentary Constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law. The highest Judicial organ is the European Court of Human Rights mostly composed on non-Turks. Turkey is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR thus the UN can at anytime investigate any alleged Human Rights abuses in Turkey. Now you mention freedom of press. Media are not a Constitutional arm of Government. They are equal before the law. If they conduct terrorist propaganda they will be shut down. If they advocate for the overthrow of a democratically elected Government by force: they will be shut down. There are many examples of this throughout Europe. In fact, Germany more recently shut down a Turkish-German newspaper citing disruption to social cohesion. Just like the US will not allow any US media company to become a mouth piece for ISIS Turkey will not allow any Turkish media organisation to become a mouth piece for the PKK.

You mention a rigged system but do not elaborate. You would recall the Turkish elections were supervised by many supra-national entities and the UN. Turkish Opposition party members are also present at all polling booths when the counting and collection of votes occurs. Just like any Western democracy. On 15 July a faction of the Turkish Armed Forces sought to overthrow the elected Government. The Turkish people from all walks of life and political demonisations protested the move and re-instated their elected Government to power. In light of the aforementioned any attempt to still question the legitimacy of the Government is ill-intentioned.

Can we keep the political propaganda out of this thread (and site) please? It has nothing to do with "F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers".

:roll:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2016, 23:35
by bojack_horseman
botsing wrote:Can we keep the political propaganda out of this thread


Yes +1000!

The constant press dumps extolling the glory of the new Ottoman empire and it's benevolent god-king are sucking the joy from popping in here!

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2016, 00:07
by airforces_freak
bojack_horseman wrote:
botsing wrote:Can we keep the political propaganda out of this thread


Yes +1000!

The constant press dumps extolling the glory of the new Ottoman empire and it's benevolent god-king are sucking the joy from popping in here!


The same could be equally said about posts involving the US. Why does one amount to "stating developments in the defence industry" and the other being propaganda?

You would note I am not the one making political statements. I am merely responding to political statements and correcting the record. Why can others post about US & other nations acquisitions and I be ridiculed for posting defence industry developments from Turkey?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2016, 00:20
by spazsinbad
There are other forum threads for political stuff. This thread is about F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2016, 08:16
by lookieloo
Well, there's the tanker. Now we just need that awacs version and we'll have a complete STOVL air wing.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/10/26/new-s ... 26rank%3D0

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2016, 08:23
by lookieloo
A modest proposal: Offer package discount for said air wing to allies that build/purchase STOVL carriers of their own.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2016, 08:43
by spazsinbad
V-22 VAR article posted earlier here: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26629&p=355024&hilit=Seck#p355024

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2016, 18:30
by lookieloo
Yet more relevant here methinks than a geriatric "aviation plan" thread.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2016, 18:39
by spazsinbad
:-( Take it up with the moderators.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 08:29
by popcorn
http://alert5.com/2016/04/21/spanish-na ... the-f-35b/

Spanish Navy might adopt the F-35B


Head of the Spanish Navy Adm. Jaime Muñoz-Delgado said his service might have to adopt the F-35B once the current AV-8Bs’ ran out of lifespan in the next decade.
Muñoz-Delgado suggests tackling the issue together with the Air Force as the latter needs to replace its F/A-18 in the same time frame.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 08:44
by spazsinbad
That original report that ALERT5 links to here is dated 20 Apr 2016:
F-35B May Be In Spanish Navy's Future
20 Apr 2016 Esteban Villarejo

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83270268/

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 09:00
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:That original report that ALERT5 links to here is dated 20 Apr 2016:
F-35B May Be In Spanish Navy's Future
20 Apr 2016 Esteban Villarejo

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83270268/


Oh Wow!, if the Spanish Juan Carlos "Might" be upgraded to the F-35B, then the Aussie Canberra "Might"........etc., etc., etc...... Enjoy :wink:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 09:29
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Pull the other one.... :devil: :doh: JCI was designed & built to operate the F-35B (before there was one example flying). Won't take much to make JCI good to go. Details on this or other forum threads from the long past now.

And again... the above is known by ADF. The public only knows a loudly expressed opinion that 'Bs on Oz LHDs' cannot be done, without any detail about why (and again I do not refer to lots of speculation from unknown sources). One needs to be patient. Already we will have ONE RAAF F-35B pilot with the USMC according to USMC LtGen 'Dog' Davis. Watch out for an RN/RAF F-35B RAAF exchange pilot - perhaps. These are toes in the ever widening CRACK in the door to.... No one in ADF has publically expressed any interest in the F-35B except the recent AM Davies hint - without explanation - on another thread. Speculation without evidence is not much good IMHO. Pity the ADF people 'who investigated the former PM & DefMin request' about this matter have not made public their findings. Put it all in the too hard basket - the round one - for now.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=354900&hilit=Davies#p354900

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 10:06
by Corsair1963
neptune wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:That original report that ALERT5 links to here is dated 20 Apr 2016:
F-35B May Be In Spanish Navy's Future
20 Apr 2016 Esteban Villarejo

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83270268/


Oh Wow!, if the Spanish Juan Carlos "Might" be upgraded to the F-35B, then the Aussie Canberra "Might"........etc., etc., etc...... Enjoy :wink:


The Spanish Navy had plans on acquiring the F-35B many years ago. Yet, when the Spanish Economy tanked a few years back. It was quietly put on the back burner. Nonetheless, recently a number of officials have openly discussed the F-35B as the only option for replacing the Harrier post 2025...(when it retires) Yet, nothing firm for now......


My guess is the US will sell Spain a small number of secondhand F-35B's when the time comes. :wink:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 14:03
by hornetfinn
Spanish economy is actually doing pretty well currently and seems to be growing very well currently. Spanish is economically pretty equivalent to Canada, Turkey, Australia and Italy. Spain will pretty soon need to replace both their F/A-18 Hornets along with their AV-8. Of course they are currently using also Eurofighter Typhoon, but I sense a real potential for F-35 to replace both Hornets and Matadors (Harriers). EF Typhoon is naturally very possible choice to replace Hornets, but basically there is only F-35B to replace Harriers. The other choice is to give up fixed wing aviation and use Juan Carlos I only as helicopter carrier as Australia does theirs.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2016, 09:03
by airforces_freak
What is the service life on Spain's recently upgraded (2011) AV-8B Harrier IIs? If I am not wrong modifications included new avionics equipment, structural improvements and the integration of the improved Rolls-Royce Pegasus 408A turbofan engine. Surely, this would add significant service life to this platform??

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2016, 09:39
by spazsinbad
IF you read the 'DefenseNews' story this is what it says:
"...According to Admiral Chief of Naval Staff Jaime Muñoz-Delgado, "Our fleet of Harrier aircraft has a useful life until the period between 2025 and 2027....

...In November 2014, the Ministry of Defense extended the agreement to support the Harrier program after approving an investment of €47.6 million (US $54.1 million) between 2014 and 2024...."

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2017, 22:02
by spazsinbad
On page 38 of this thread 'TCS' had some concerns about the Turkish LHD. Here are official photos from government & builders of the model under build now - large blocks are being welded together as we read this (photos / graphics e-mail).

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2017, 22:14
by spazsinbad
NEW Italian Navy LHD Trieste which will operate the F-35Bs, something or other by 2020.


Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2017, 22:54
by hythelday
Funny how Turkish LHD has T-72s inside :roll:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2017, 23:07
by popcorn
The Italians have gone with dual islands just like the Brits. No ski jump though.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 01:33
by spazsinbad
Credible e-mail correspondent says there is an allowance for a ski jump to be fitted to TRIESTE in future - looking for an English quote now - Italian not so unnnerstanable.
First F-35B STOVL Aircraft for Italian Navy Rolled Out of Italian Production Facility
08 May 2017 NavyRecognition

"...The F-35B model short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant is designed to operate from austere, short-field bases and a range of air-capable ships operating near front-line combat zones. The F-35B can also take off and land conventionally from longer runways at major bases. Italian Navy F-35B will fly missions from Aircraft Carrier Cavour and the future LHD Trieste."

Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ility.html

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 01:42
by popcorn
Nice if they have allowed for retrofit of a ski jump later on. Until then they maximize deck use for helos..

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 01:51
by spazsinbad
:devil: :roll: 'helps'? YEP 'helps' need all the HELP they can get - such a sad way to fly but good for rescues I guess. :doh: :mrgreen:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 03:06
by popcorn
Fixed.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 03:39
by spazsinbad
Forgot to mention the add-on ski jump for TRIESTE would be 'modular' so easy to install/uninstall I guess.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 06:34
by spazsinbad
See previous page this thread for info/models of Turkish LHD with F-35Bs (modelled in video by Hairiers?).


Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2017, 00:11
by nutshell
You guys talking about sky jumps but Trieste will be mostely used for civilian tasks.

Hope Cavour doesnt end like that.

Hate to say this but can you share some of the Donald with us please?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2017, 02:46
by arian
nutshell wrote:You guys talking about sky jumps but Trieste will be mostely used for civilian tasks.


Well, securing your maritime borders is a civilian task technically but also the largest threat Italy faces. Probably would have been better to get 100 patrol boats for the price of that carrier instead.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 01:41
by popcorn
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... amphib-ops

F-35B Will Change NATO Amphib Ops

The arrival of the F-35B Lightning II in the inventories of many NATO nations is likely to fundamentally alter how NATO conducts air support to amphibious operations. This aircraft will bring a new level of capability to core missions, including counterair, antishipping, and traditional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). Amphibious task force commanders and their staffs will have to adapt to successfully leverage the capabilities provided by the F-35B. Its arrival will force a sea change and will require a deliberate effort to break the generational and service mind-set if the future amphibious force is to operate with a more integrated perspective.

NATO’s Aircraft Carriers

The next few years will see a dramatic increase in the capacity and capability of NATO’s amphibious forces, beginning with the availability of F-35s on board many smaller short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. Of the NATO F-35 partner countries, the F-35B variant is being planned for use on board the amphibious assault ships of Great Britain, Italy, and the United States and is being explored by Spain. 1 Great Britain also is in discussions regarding deploying a U.S. Marine squadron on board HMS Queen Elizabeth within the next few years
more...

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 02:10
by spazsinbad
In one TAILHOOK 2017 video a comment was made by an admirable that the 1st CVF QE deployment will have 6 UK F-35Bs & half a doz USMC F-35Bs.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 02:30
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:In one TAILHOOK 2017 video a comment was made by an admirable that the 1st CVF QE deployment will have 6 UK F-35Bs & half a doz USMC F-35Bs.

:wink:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2017, 23:52
by nutshell
arian wrote:
nutshell wrote:You guys talking about sky jumps but Trieste will be mostely used for civilian tasks.


Well, securing your maritime borders is a civilian task technically but also the largest threat Italy faces. Probably would have been better to get 100 patrol boats for the price of that carrier instead.



Nono, literally non military related tasks.

Migrants rescue, floating hospital and so on. To the point (from what i've been told at least) it will pass most of the time unarmed.
It's an undeserved slap in the face of a Service that always kept the highest level of professionalism and dignity.

A warship and an armed service should be treated and equipped as such. Not treated as the white dressed version of Emergency or DWB.

Fortunately there's still hope someone might stop this madness.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2017, 01:37
by spazsinbad
Australia played the same public relations game with the two new LHDs (help civvies and all that) but when these went sailing our admirable bigwigs said theys was WARSHIPS matey (without organic fleet defence). So good news/bad news.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2017, 05:26
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Australia played the same public relations game with the two new LHDs (help civvies and all that) but when these went sailing our admirable bigwigs said theys was WARSHIPS matey (without organic fleet defence). So good news/bad news.


....wot no frigates, destroyers to go boating with them??
:(

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2017, 05:42
by spazsinbad
What do you think? Do they do the same job as an F-35B around and about soaking up the scene & transmitting it?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2017, 23:48
by nutshell
spazsinbad wrote:Australia played the same public relations game with the two new LHDs (help civvies and all that) but when these went sailing our admirable bigwigs said theys was WARSHIPS matey (without organic fleet defence). So good news/bad news.


As it should be.

A small carriers fitted to carry the most deadly machine that cruise around the mediterranean sea with just a handful of slightly armed navy personnel and a deck empty bar 2 Pegaso Heli-ambulance.

What's next? A Nimitz class carrier hosting a gay pride with 1960's ping VW vans parked all over the deck?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 01:43
by white_lightning35
Don't give some of our "activists" ideas...

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 06:10
by steve2267
I think it would be pretty friggin sweet to see VW buses launched off a Ford-class via EMALS. Unfortunately, he did say Nimitz-class.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2017, 07:01
by spazsinbad



Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2017, 23:04
by nutshell
[quote="steve2267"launched off a Ford-class via EMALS. Unfortunately, he did say Nimitz-class.[/quote]

In that case, instead of a VW it shoud've been a Chevy. A Camaro ofc.

...shots fired?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 19:45
by neptune
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia ... -fighters/

Japan, South Korea may refit naval ships for F-35 fighters

By: Mike Yeo  
26Dec17

MELBOURNE, Australia —
Amid growing tensions in the region, both Japan and South Korea are reportedly investigating options to operate the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter on board their respective ships. Quoting reports from unnamed military sources in their respective countries, Japan’s Kyodo news agency and South Korea’s Yonhap said that the short take-off vertical landing, or STOVL F-35B variant is being considered for operations from Japan’s Izumo-class DDH helicopter destroyer and South Korea’s Dokdo-class amphibious assault ship, turning them into combat-capable aircraft carriers. Kyodo’s also reported that the F-35Bs could be used to defend Japan’s far flung southwestern islands, which lack long runways needed for conventional fighter jets to operate.

That strategy is being considered in response to North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities, as well as China’s rapid military modernization, Asked about the reports at a media conference on Tuesday, Japanese defense minister Itsunori Onodera repeatedly denied any plans to modify the Izumo-class to operate F-35Bs, only going as far as saying the ministry is constantly “conducting various studies evaluating Japan’s defense capability.” Modification of the ships to operate the F-35B will enhance flexibility and expand the range of missions, with Yonhap quoting a source as saying that the South Korean military is looking at “maximizing the strategic value of the vessel’s capabilities.” The ships can carry several helicopters during normal operations, with the Izumo and Dokdo class designed to carry a maximum of 14 and 10 helicopters respectively. Both ship classes will however need to be modified extensively internally and externally to operate the F-35B, including the application of a thermally protective coating on areas of the flight deck to withstand hot exhaust gases during F-35B vertical landings, and possibly even reshaping the flight deck to allow rolling takeoffs. They will also need to have the ammunition magazines hardened and enlarged to accommodate the F-35B’s weapons, while aviation fuel storage facilities will also likely need to be expanded to account for higher fuel consumption compared to helicopters.

Reuters has suggested that a ski-jump may be fitted to the Izumo as part of any modification program for the F-35B, however with the Izumo-class being 248 meters long and the Dokdo 199 meters, both already have flight decks long enough for the F-35B to carry out rolling takeoffs — no ski-jump needed. Both Japan and South Korea have a single Izumo and Dokdo-class ship in service, with another ship of each class being constructed. The two countries are also operators of the F-35A conventional take off and landing version, with Japan and South Korea having 42 and 40 F-35As on order respectively.

The possession of aircraft carriers by Japan will be a significant shift in its defense posture and is likely to be a contentious issue, with critics likely to point to Japan’s pacifist constitution banning the country from acquiring what is referred to as “war potential.” But Corey Wallace, an Einstein postdoctoral fellow in the Graduate School of East Asian Studies at Berlin’s Freie Universitat wrote in the East Asia Forum that Japan’s constitution does not explicitly ban specific capabilities — offensive or otherwise. Rather, its government interprets ‘war potential’ as referring to the total strength of Japan’s Self-Defense Forces relative to potential threats and international conditions, and not whether a given capability is mostly offensive or defensive.
:)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 00:08
by sunstersun
It would make more sense for Japan to just construct a carrier than to modify that helicopter "destroyer."

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 00:14
by blindpilot
neptune wrote:... Both ship classes will however need to be modified extensively internally and externally to operate the F-35B, including the application of a thermally protective coating on areas of the flight deck to withstand hot exhaust gases during F-35B vertical landings, ...
:)


This never ceases to amuse me that journalist are so obsessed with melting decks, that aren't going to melt. By far and away, the deck coating is the easiest modification to make. It's the infrastructure design changes that would be the most work.

But hey! Melting decks are exciting! Aaargh!

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 00:38
by spazsinbad
Some journos have to carry on in memory of BillieBobBoySweetiePie and his melting deck/pizza oven concrete scenarios.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 01:07
by zerion
Long article

China upset at Japan’s plan to buy F-35B stealth fighter ‘jump jets’ for its helicopter carriers

CHINA has warned another nation not to convert its warships into F-35 stealth fighter carriers — ot it will revive the dark days of WWII...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innov ... f0ddb7f671

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 01:19
by neptune
zerion wrote:Long article

China upset at Japan’s plan to buy F-35B stealth fighter ‘jump jets’ for its helicopter carriers

CHINA has warned another nation not to convert its warships into F-35 stealth fighter carriers — ot it will revive the dark days of WWII...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innov ... f0ddb7f671


....darn! warning others while building "inexpensive" islands (targets) that don't move must be frustrating!

:bang:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 06:58
by spazsinbad
A good start upon which Australia could follow n'est-ce pas? But no - they'll drag their friggin' feet to the inevitable FIRE! :doh:
Making Izumo an aircraft carrier would boost alliance
26 Dec 2017 Kenta Kamimura/Yomiuri Shimbun

"The government’s latest move to mull remodeling the Izumo, the largest-class destroyer of the Maritime Self-Defense Force, into an aircraft carrier highlights its aim to further strengthen Japan-U.S. cooperation by utilizing a new vessel amid mounting tension surrounding North Korea....

...The government plans to temporarily use a remodeled Izumo as a refueling base mainly for F-35B fighter jets deployed by the U.S. military for operations to defend Japan, according to sources. [THIS IS THE IDEA!]

Under the security-related laws that took effect in March 2016, the Self-Defense Forces and the U.S. military have unified more of their operations. In May, the Izumo and other MSDF destroyers conducted “U.S. military ship protection” measures — operations in which a Japanese vessel defends a U.S. supply ship in peacetime.... [FLEET DEFENCE BABY!]

...Within the government, there also is a future plan for the ASDF to have F-35B jets as carrier-based planes....

...the government intends to gain public acceptance by limiting the attack capabilities of a remodeled Izumo and using it for the purpose of defending remote islands and protecting MSDF vessels...." [YOU GO GIRL!]

Source: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0004148553

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 08:38
by weasel1962
Japan is not just looking at the F-35Bs for its amphs. Its also about the Okinawa chain of islands.
http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/12/25/ ... b-fighters

It was 5 1/2 years since I last mentioned the chain of islands as a potential staging ground to counter China
http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index. ... c=4160.340

As the above link may not be accessed except by members, I repost the runway list that can potentially be used by F-35Bs.

Table: runways sorted by distance to Taiwan

Airport Runway details Coordinates Apron size Deployment Distance to Taiwan
Yonaguni 1 runway 2,000m long, 45m wide, class C 24028'03"N, 122058'47"E 10,200 m2 sqn size 150km to Keelung
Hateruma 1 runway 1,500m long, 45m wide, class H 24003'30"N , 123048'14"E 22,038 m2 sqn size 242km to Keelung
Ishigaki 1 runway 1,500m long, 45m wide, class D 24020'41"N , 124011'13"E 22,038 m2 sqn size 267km to Keelung
Tarama 1 runway 1,500m long, 45m wide, class D 24038'13.7"N, 124040'31.6"E 7,700 m2 sqn size 313km to Keelung
Shimojishima 1 runway 3,000m long, 30m wide, class A 24049'36"N, 125008'41"E 129,200 m2 Multiple sqn 350km to Keelung
Hirara 1 runway 2,000m long, 45m wide, 149 ft high, class C 24046'58"N , 127017'42"E 27,500 m2 sqn size 367km to Keelung
Kumejima 1 runway 2,000m long, 45m wide, class C 26021'49"N, 126042'50"E 19,800 m2 sqn size 533km to Keelung
Kerama 1 runway 800m long, 25m wide, class H 26010'06"N , 127017'36"E 3,000 m2 1/2 sqn size 579km to Keelung
Aguni 1 runway 800m long, 25m wide, class H 26035'34"N , 127014'25"E 2,000 m2 1/2 sqn size 583km to Keelung
Iejima 1 runway 1,500m long, 45m wide, class D 26043'21"N , 127047'13"E 7,700 m2 sqn size 642km to Keelung
Yoron 1 runway 1,200m long, 14m high 27002'38"N , 128024'06"E ~8,500 m2 sqn size 717km to Keelung
Okinoerabu 1 runway 1,350m long, 27m high 27025'54"N , 128042'20"E ~12,000 m2 sqn size 754km to Keelung
Tokunoshima 1 runway 2,000m long, 2m high 27050'11"N , 128052'53"E ~10,800 m2 sqn size 792km to Keelung

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 10:00
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:A good start upon which Australia could follow n'est-ce pas? But no - they'll drag their friggin' feet to the inevitable FIRE! :doh:
Making Izumo an aircraft carrier would boost alliance
26 Dec 2017 Kenta Kamimura/Yomiuri Shimbun

"The government’s latest move to mull remodeling the Izumo, the largest-class destroyer of the Maritime Self-Defense Force, into an aircraft carrier highlights its aim to further strengthen Japan-U.S. cooperation by utilizing a new vessel amid mounting tension surrounding North Korea....

...The government plans to temporarily use a remodeled Izumo as a refueling base mainly for F-35B fighter jets deployed by the U.S. military for operations to defend Japan, according to sources. [THIS IS THE IDEA!]

Under the security-related laws that took effect in March 2016, the Self-Defense Forces and the U.S. military have unified more of their operations. In May, the Izumo and other MSDF destroyers conducted “U.S. military ship protection” measures — operations in which a Japanese vessel defends a U.S. supply ship in peacetime.... [FLEET DEFENCE BABY!]

...Within the government, there also is a future plan for the ASDF to have F-35B jets as carrier-based planes....

...the government intends to gain public acceptance by limiting the attack capabilities of a remodeled Izumo and using it for the purpose of defending remote islands and protecting MSDF vessels...." [YOU GO GIRL!]

Source: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0004148553


I think when Spain and Turkey start operating F-35B's from their BPE's. Then we will see a change of heart from the Australian Government....."IMHO"

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 13:09
by tincansailor
It's only a matter of time before Japan decides to build full scale aircraft carriers. With American help Japan could build ships at least the size of the QE-IIs with Cats and Traps. Japan and the USN would then be the sole operators of the F-35C. With two carriers with 36 F-35Cs each Japan would buy about 90. The C model the most expensive because it will be the least produced. I think the plan is for the USN, and Marines to buy 340 Cs, Adding 90 for a Japanese order should cut the cost considerable.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 13:44
by spazsinbad
USN buys 260 F-35Cs whilst USMC (by new amended agreement) buy 67 F-35Cs (2015 plan) for a total of tadah 327 F-35Cs.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 16:55
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:USN buys 260 F-35Cs whilst USMC (by new amended agreement) buy 67 F-35Cs (2015 plan) for a total of tadah 327 F-35Cs.


Yeah, there was that whole
"680 divided by 2, half B and C, but plus 13 B minus 13 C's, but Congress gave us 13 extra anyway is 693, divided by two but we don't want that so add 26 and subtract ...... doh... HOW MANY ARE WE GETTING AGAIN?!!!!!" circus.

And I still don't know how many B's and C's they really think they'll get in the end, but I bet it isn't what they say now .... All I know is the Marines want them to buy as many Bee's, as fast as possible, and then they will say stop when they don't have any broken down F-18/AV-8's left. Program of record, smecord I say.

:shock: :shock: :bang:

BP

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 18:42
by spazsinbad
Heheh. I understand the frustration however I see it as simple and see you making it complicated unnecessarily. The USMC Aviation Plan of 2015 had the simple answer to the F-35C change. Later the USMC asked for & received extra F-35Bs. OK?

Rather than just repeat the old numbers it is best to be up to date with the new ones. When future numbers change then?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 19:07
by spazsinbad
China is taking the Japanese 'F-35Bs on Japanese Flat Decks' trial balloon seriously - but they would - wouldn't they. :doh:
China urges Japan to ‘act cautiously’ on considerations to refit Izumo class for F-35Bs
27 Dec 2017 Ridzwan Rahmat

"Key Points
• Beijing has issued strong remarks amid news that Tokyo is considering F-35B fighters for its helicopter carriers
• Japan’s defence minister has downplayed reports but the strongly worded statement from Beijing sheds more light on Chinese sentiments over the STOVL aircraft

Amid reports that the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) is considering to refit its fleet of Izumo-class helicopter carriers to carry F-35B fighter aircraft, Beijing has called on Tokyo to ‘act cautiously’ with regards to military matters...."

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/76659/chin ... for-f-35bs

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 19:19
by spazsinbad
Govt eyes converting Izumo to aircraft carrier
26 Dec 2017 The Yomiuri Shimbun

"...According to multiple government sources, the government aims to begin operation of the aircraft carrier in the early 2020s, and it intends to maintain its interpretation that Japan cannot possess an aircraft carrier with attack capabilities, by using the envisaged aircraft carrier for defense purposes, such as using it as a refueling base in defending remote islands.

The government assumes that the new aircraft carrier will carry U.S. forces’ F-35B fighter jets, the sources said. By strengthening Japan-U.S. cooperation, the government aims to prepare for threats posed by North Korea and China.

The Izumo is a destroyer with a large deck, and its shape is similar to that of an aircraft carrier. It has an overall length of 248 meters and a full load displacement of about 26,000 tons. It is said that the vessel is capable of carrying 14 helicopters. If it is remodeled into an aircraft carrier, it likely will be able to carry about 10 F-35B fighter jets, according to the sources.

In the remodeling, the deck’s heat resistance will be enhanced so that it can withstand the heat produced by the jet engine of an F-35B fighter jet, the sources said. A specific remodeling method will be examined going forward, including a plan to build a slope into the deck to assist aircraft in taking off, much like a ski jump.

The Defense Ministry aims to appropriate research expenses in the fiscal 2019 budget, the sources said.

The government also is considering deploying F-35B fighter jets to the Air Self-Defense Force. However, if F-35B fighter jets are loaded onto the envisaged aircraft carrier, it would directly mean Japan’s acquisition of the ability to hit enemy bases. Therefore, the government will decide the issue based on discussions for the revision of the National Defense Program Guidelines at the end of 2018.

The purpose of possessing an aircraft carrier is to promote integrated operations between Japan and the United States through refueling U.S. forces’ aircraft on the aircraft carrier.

Under the security-related legislation that went into effect in March 2016 and the new Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that took effect in April 2017, Japan is now able to refuel U.S. forces’ aircraft in a wider range of situations, such as exercises in peacetime and preparation for action in case of emergencies.

The use of a Japanese aircraft carrier by U.S. forces will help enhance the ability to defend remote islands and the MSDF’s defense capabilities. In case of enemy attacks on remote islands or MSDF fleets, if U.S. fighter jets can land and refuel on the aircraft carrier deployed at a place an appropriate distance from the enemy, the ability to deal with the enemy will be increased.

If U.S. military bases in Japan are destroyed in case of a contingency, the aircraft carrier will serve as a substitute runway....

...The government has cited an aircraft carrier with attack capabilities as an example of armed forces with war potential, the possession of which is prohibited under Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution. However, a senior Defense Ministry official said, “If it is used for defense purposes, it will not fall under the category of an aircraft carrier with attack capabilities.”..." [FLEET DEFENCE DUMMY!!!]

Source: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0004148477

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 19:26
by mas
The Alpha and Charlie are great but the Bee is what makes this design truly great especially as the other two models are not really hindered by sharing the same shape. With the Bee stealth air superiority can be cheaply established anywhere in the world by anyone with a reasonably sized ship or short runway. This was the guiding ethos behind the original Harrier but the F-35B will make it a reality for so many more allies. The F-35 sure has taken a lot of flak from the uneducated but unfairly it is not suitably applauded for what's actually gone right and unlike say the F-111 this multi-purpose plane actually delivered on ALL its conceived purposes with one basic airframe. :applause:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 19:38
by SpudmanWP
It's funny to see China going with the "Do as I say, not as I do" approach....


Well, not that funny. :nono:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 21:06
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:.......
The purpose of possessing an aircraft carrier is to promote integrated operations between Japan and the United States through refueling U.S. forces’ aircraft on the aircraft carrier...Japan is now able to refuel U.S. forces’ aircraft in a wider range of situations, such as exercises in peacetime and preparation for action in case of emergencies. The use of a Japanese aircraft carrier by U.S. forces will help enhance the ability to defend remote islands and the MSDF’s defense capabilities. In case of enemy attacks on remote islands or MSDF fleets, if U.S. fighter jets can land and refuel on the aircraft carrier deployed at a place an appropriate distance from the enemy, the ability to deal with the enemy will be increased. If U.S. military bases in Japan are destroyed in case of a contingency, the aircraft carrier will serve as a substitute runway....

...The government has cited an aircraft carrier with attack capabilities as an example of armed forces with war potential, the possession of which is prohibited under Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution. However, a senior Defense Ministry official said, “If it is used for defense purposes, it will not fall under the category of an aircraft carrier with attack capabilities.”.....


....the Japanese Aegis destroyers are buying the infrastructure to implement "NIFC-CA" and with the integration of the "Bee" it will bring another facet to the defense of the Japanese islands and commerce.
:)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 21:14
by sunstersun
lol i can't wait until japan sheds their peaceful constitution.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 21:17
by spazsinbad
As an aside - to point out that also the Australian Navy is entering that NIFC-CA world also - why not investigate the POSSIBILITY - in the same way JAPAN is contemplating - to have Oz Bs on our Oz LHDs when needed for Fleet Defence?

More about Plan Pelorus:
Chief of Navy (RAN) [CoN] 07 Jun 2017 speech "...Like Air Force’s Plan Jericho, Pelorus demands innovation at all levels of our organisation and recognises the need for technologically advanced naval systems to combine in the modern fleet system and integrate seamlessly across the joint and networked environment. But I hesitate to add. That is not the endstate. It is what you do with this network that is important. Importantly, Pelorus is not focused on individual ships, submarines or airframes. It recognises that our platforms need to operate as a system—indeed as a system of systems...." http://www.navy.gov.au/media-room/publi ... -systems-0

Australian Destroyer Will be First Foreign Warship to Install Raytheon’s Cooperative Engagement Capability
21 Dec 2017 Ben Werner

"The Royal Australian Navy is set to become the first foreign force using Raytheon’s sensor-netting system that creates a real-time composite network picture for operators at sea.

Raytheon’s Cooperative Engagement Capability system – a key enabler of the U.S. Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) construct – will be certified by the U.S. Navy for its first international installation aboard the Royal Australian Navy’s guided-missile cruiser HMAS Hobart (DDG-39), Raytheon recently announced. The company has completed its design, development and testing and is awaiting Navy certification before delivering the system to Australia in the coming months, according to a company news release.

“The addition of CEC is a major building block for Australia in their defense against anti-air warfare threats in the Pacific Region,” U.S. Navy Capt. Jonathan Garcia, CEC major program manager within the Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems, said in the Raytheon news release. “This delivery to Australia marks a significant first – expanding the CEC network globally and increasing the U.S. Navy interoperability with a valued, strategic ally.”

Hobart, commissioned in September, is equipped with the Aegis Combat System and its AN/SPY 1D(V) phased array radar. When used in combination with the SM-2 missile, Hobart can provide an advanced air defense system capable of engaging enemy aircraft and missiles more than 90 miles away, according to the Australian Navy.

CEC will expand the ship’s battle space awareness by sharing sensor data among a network of other Australian and allied CEC-equipped ships and aircraft and pulling all that real-time data into a single integrated picture for operators aboard the destroyer, according to a statement released by Raytheon.

Australia is one of three Pacific allies — along with Japan and South Korea — investing in the Aegis Baseline 9 upgrade for their surface combatants. The addition of CEC further increases the ability for the Royal Australian Navy to operate alongside the U.S. and allied navies, giving the ships the ability to share targeting and other data in real time with ships and planes operating in the Pacific.

Starting in early 2018, Raytheon will begin transferring certified hardware and software for installation aboard Hobart and sister ship Brisbane (DDG-41). Raytheon will provide support throughout the integration, testing and sea trials."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/12/21/austra ... capability

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 21:26
by white_lightning35
spazsinbad wrote:As an aside - to point out that also the Australian Navy is entering that NIFC-CA world also - why not investigate the POSSIBILITY - in the same way JAPAN is contemplating - to have Oz Bs on our Oz LHDs when needed for Fleet Defence?


Said thinking is VERBOTEN!

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 21:32
by spazsinbad
Says who?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 21:35
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:As an aside - to point out that also the Australian Navy is entering that NIFC-CA world also - why not investigate the POSSIBILITY - in the same way JAPAN is contemplating - to have Oz Bs on our Oz LHDs when needed for ....


....with CEC on an Aegis destroyer; NIFC-CA and SM-6 provides a 300mi. range that can well be exploited by the "Bee", a bit over the horizon.
:)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 01:50
by weasel1962
Didnt the MoD already looked at the Bs on the canberras back in 2014 when Abbott asked for it as part of the defense white paper? What's changed?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 03:33
by spazsinbad
weasel1962 wrote:Didnt the MoD already looked at the Bs on the canberras back in 2014 when Abbott asked for it as part of the defense white paper? What's changed?

Change? North Korean nuke testing bonanza and China building artificial island outposts in the South China Sea is what. Meanwhile only one newspaper report said 'too hard/too expensive' to have Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs whilst others quoted it.

No official report released as was sort of promised when Abbott & then DefMin asked for it -maybe they saw it- we didn't.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 03:51
by Corsair1963
blindpilot wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:USN buys 260 F-35Cs whilst USMC (by new amended agreement) buy 67 F-35Cs (2015 plan) for a total of tadah 327 F-35Cs.


Yeah, there was that whole
"680 divided by 2, half B and C, but plus 13 B minus 13 C's, but Congress gave us 13 extra anyway is 693, divided by two but we don't want that so add 26 and subtract ...... doh... HOW MANY ARE WE GETTING AGAIN?!!!!!" circus.

And I still don't know how many B's and C's they really think they'll get in the end, but I bet it isn't what they say now .... All I know is the Marines want them to buy as many Bee's, as fast as possible, and then they will say stop when they don't have any broken down F-18/AV-8's left. Program of record, smecord I say.

:shock: :shock: :bang:

BP


Regardless, of todays numbers the "odds" are the USN will buy more F-35C's than what's currently projected. Just like they did with the proceeding Tomcat, Hornet, and todays Super Hornet. Good guess is as soon as the USN completes the current plan of acquiring two F-35C Squadrons per Air Wing. It will just keep replacing the remaining Super Hornets Squadrons. Now how soon that happens will of course depend on the buy rate yearly over the next decade or so....Yet, remember the US Congress has a habit of ordering more aircraft than what the individual services request! ;)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 04:22
by spazsinbad
Change is a comin' in - loudly sing cuckoo....
Australia and Japan Expected to Finalize Visiting Forces Agreement Next Month
26 Dec 2017 Ben Werner

"Japan and Australia are close to inking their first visiting forces agreement, which would pave the way to smoother combined military operations, according to media accounts.

When Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull visits Japan in January, he’s expected to announce an agreement with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. [ http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 0a12s.html ] The two countries have been in talks about the VFA since 2014, the article adds.

A visiting forces agreement would clearly define the legal status of foreign forces taking part in temporary military activities such as relief missions or joint exercises, exempt customs on military equipment and other gear needed for military operations, and grant permission for arms and ammunition transport during military visits.

While Australia has visiting forces agreements with a handful of nations, including the U.S., this agreement would be a first for Japan.... a year ago both Japan and Australia announced plans to boost their amphibious capabilities and beef up coastal defenses....

...For some time, Australia and Japan have both been equipping their forces with high-end U.S. technology, enhancing their own security but also paving the way for interoperability between the three countries’ militaries. Both Japan and Australia have Aegis-equipped destroyers. A week ago, Abe’s cabinet approved the purchase of two Aegis Ashore missile defense systems, and Australia became the first international partner to acquire Raytheon’s Cooperative Engagement Capability system – a key enabler of the U.S. Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) construct.

In another effort geared towards increasing interoperability, Japan is considering refitting its Japan Maritime Self Defense Force’s helicopter carrier JS Izumo (DDH-183) to accommodate U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighter operations. Japan will field an F-35A conventional take-off and landing fleet, but the Marines’ F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant will begin operations out of Japan [aboard USS Wasp] in 2018."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/12/26/austra ... -agreement

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 05:07
by steve2267
I enquired about light carriers or something like that for Australia a month or so ago and got smacked down. :doh:

Then I looked up the Canberra class on Wikipedia tonight and see this wonderful, unfulfilled ramp on both the Canberra and the Adelaide. :drool:

Now I'm reading the Japanese are apparently contemplating / wondering / whatiffing the possibility of Killer Bees on their Destroyer carrier(s). Apparently the South Koreans have similar thoughts.

Five or more Lightning Carriers floating around the South China Sea certainly couldn't make the PLAN very happy, nor fatboy rocketman in NORK.

What is everyone waiting for... BUY THE BEE! Or not... I'm sure the USMC would be thrilled that youseall are buying more floating landing fields for them to cross deck on... "AHOOOOYYYY down there! I just delivered a load of goodies to Pyongyang... mind if I land for a quick pint, and refuel? Any goodies you'd like for me to deliver on your behalf!?!?"

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 05:31
by spazsinbad
Enquiries about 'Oz Bees on Oz LHDs' depend on where you start (not beginning puhleez) - you are up to speed now - cool.

There is a very long thread about such matters - it has been pointed out several times - find my first post methinks. Less interesting that NOT! my first post here does not show up where it should but found it anyways. Holiday Reading at best:

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=155531&hilit=carrier#p155531

OF COURSE there are other threads about the same topic - you can find them - I know you can - yes you can - yes you can.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 05:53
by Corsair1963
tincansailor wrote:It's only a matter of time before Japan decides to build full scale aircraft carriers. With American help Japan could build ships at least the size of the QE-IIs with Cats and Traps. Japan and the USN would then be the sole operators of the F-35C. With two carriers with 36 F-35Cs each Japan would buy about 90. The C model the most expensive because it will be the least produced. I think the plan is for the USN, and Marines to buy 340 Cs, Adding 90 for a Japanese order should cut the cost considerable.



The current Japanese Defense Budget is already stretched near its limits. So, just finding the resources to acquire a modest number of F-35B's and upgrading the Izumo's is going to be challenging enough. Second, the consternation cause by acquiring the aforementioned in nothing compared. To the uproar of Japan building something as arduous as a large Aircraft Carrier equipped with no less than 36 F-35C's! Honestly, the Japanese Navy has a long history of slow steady progression in Warship Design. Especially, in regards to "Air Capable Ships"! Just look at the last four classes of such types.....

Shirane Class DDH
1280px-JS_Kurama_in_the_Pacific_Ocean_02.jpg



Ōsumi Class LST
LST-4003_Kunisaki.jpg



Hyūga Class DDH
DDH-181_ひゅうが_(12).jpg


Izumo Clas DDH
DDH-183_いずも_(1).jpg



In short don't expect to see a true Aircraft Carrier from Japan anytime in the near future. Instead expect the current trend to stay the same.....Which, is this case would most likely be a slightly larger Izumo. That would be more tailored for fixed wing operations. While still operating STOVL Aircraft. (F-35B's, v-22's, etc.)

"IMHO" :wink:

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 09:06
by tincansailor
The current Japanese Defense Budget is already stretched near its limits. So, just finding the resources to acquire a modest number of F-35B's and upgrading the Izumo's is going to be challenging enough. Second, the consternation cause by acquiring the aforementioned in nothing compared. To the uproar of Japan building something as arduous as a large Aircraft Carrier equipped with no less than 36 F-35C's! Honestly, the Japanese Navy has a long history of slow steady progression in Warship Design. Especially, in regards to "Air Capable Ships"! Just look at the last four classes of such types.....
In short don't expect to see a true Aircraft Carrier from Japan anytime in the near future. Instead expect the current trend to stay the same.....Which, is this case would most likely be a slightly larger Izumo. That would be more tailored for fixed wing operations. While still operating STOVL Aircraft. (F-35B's, v-22's, etc.)

"IMHO" :wink:



Thanks for your analysis corsair. Your right in everything you said, the Japanese are very incremental in their ship designs. I just think that the logical next step is moving up to at least a light carrier. I don't see the utility of something between an assault ship, and a light carrier. If you build a carrier why not go all the way with Cats & Traps? I think the British short changed themselves with the QE IIs settling for a ski ramp. It hardly ever even snows in the UK. I don't think they saved that much money.

The budget is a political choice, has is the larger constitutional question of Japan's defense posture. When I said building carriers was inevitable I should have clarified I meant a time frame of about 10 years. It seems that that incremental design approach is building towards fleet carriers in that time frame. China's aggressive behavior is accelerating decisions all over Asia. The Japanese defense budget is only restrained by an artificially self imposed limit of 1% GDP.

1.5% GDP could pay for a lot of new capabilities. Things like carriers, MRBMs, ground, sea, and air launched cruise missiles, deployable ground forces, and more upgraded AGEIS Ships for NMD. The NATO declared goal is 2% GDP, Japan could well afford 1.5%. China better be nice, or in a few years they could find a much better armed Japan in their Christmas Stockings.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 12:02
by gideonic
tincansailor wrote:I think the British short changed themselves with the QE IIs settling for a ski ramp. It hardly ever even snows in the UK. I don't think they saved that much money.

Maybe, but IMO they did save considerably. The Queen Elizabeth Class has the same-sized crew than the minuscule Invincible Class, just 679 people (disregarding the air-element). That's two times less than the Charles De Gaulle (which itself is considerably smaller, though also an older design) and nearly 4 times less than the new Ford Class.

Even just the personnel costs savings over the lifetime of such a ship are no joke. But what it really shows is that it doesn't require nearly as much upkeep/maintenance than regular carriers. I would hazard a guess that even without a Nuclear reactor, "Cats and Traps" would have bloated the crew size considerably and also added noticeable maintenance costs, not to mention development costs. Lets not forget those systems would have been similar to EMALS and Advanced Arresting Gear, and we all know growing pains these had (meaning extra $$$).

Despite its size, The Queen Elizabeth Class should IMO be considered the Invincible Class "done right". They became so large only because "metal" is relatively cheap (the hull was what, only 15% of the total cost?) and studies showed that it needed an air-element of about 36 aircraft to be effective (to do something like 75 sorties per day over a five-day period).

E.g. it's large in size only, regarding complexity (and to a lesser extent capability) it's still closer to a light carrier. Overall imo it seems a good compromise considering the budget problems UK has even now.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 13:09
by mas
The QE2 carriers cost about £6bn ($8bn). Changing them to add cats and traps would have added another third to that cost*, £2bn, and they would not have been ready until 2023 at the earliest and of course the F-35C is the more expensive model too. All for an extra 150nm radius increase or the ability to carry 2000lb bombs internally. Sounds an expensive option to me and the UK Govt thought so too in 2012 when they went back to the original plan. Cats and traps are really only needed for big carriers that have a need for a variation of planes they want to fly. However the F-35B and V-22 (which can act as its refueler) will make the need for big carriers much less pressing and for allies probably obsolescent. The F-35B after all can act as a mini AWACS and electronic warfare aircraft too if needed meaning allies can get away with using the Bee in many carrier roles.

* https://web.archive.org/web/20120513102 ... 20509-F35B

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 13:30
by gideonic
mas wrote:The QE2 carriers cost about £6bn ($8bn). Changing them to add cats and traps would have added another third to that cost*, £2bn, and they would not have been ready until 2023 at the earliest and of course the F-35C is the more expensive model too. All for an extra 150nm radius increase or the ability to carry 2000lb bombs internally. Sounds an expensive option to me and the UK Govt thought so too in 2012 when they went back to the original plan. Cats and traps are really only needed for big carriers that have a need for a variation of planes they want to fly. However the F-35B and V-22 (which can act as its refueler) will make the need for big carriers much less pressing and for allies probably obsolescent. The F-35B after all can act as a mini AWACS and electronic warfare aircraft too if needed meaning allies can get away with using the Bee in many carrier roles.

* https://web.archive.org/web/20120513102 ... 20509-F35B


QE2 costs about 40% of the Ford Class and has a crew size that's more in line with the USS America. If the B models proves it's value (which it will) and budget pressure calls 11 carriers into question again, I wouldn't be surprised if talks about a similar class in US resurface again. A supercarrier it ain't, but it can do some of its jobs.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 13:49
by spazsinbad
I like the way the old 'controversies' about the CVFs need to be discussed again and again. The long thread about UK MoD in a Muddle has all that & more about CVFs - their long historic gestation - the back & forth with Bs & Cs & back to Bs....

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2017, 21:19
by spazsinbad
An e-mailed to me thought of IZUMO with green Ski Jump deck plan graphic mit F-35Bs being something akin to CAVOUR.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 03:17
by marauder2048
mas wrote:The QE2 carriers cost about £6bn ($8bn). Changing them to add cats and traps would have added another third to that cost*, £2bn,

* https://web.archive.org/web/20120513102 ... 20509-F35B


The above figure has always confused me.

Last figure I saw for the CVN-78 EMALS + AAG shipset was ~ $800M and that's for the four catapult version;
IIRC, QE2 would have used a two catapult version and the quote was ~ £450M.

Some of the light carriers (CVLs) looked at for some of Future Fleet studies in the US were
premised on two catapult EMALS. So I'm intensely curious as to the origin of £550M in extra
cost beyond shipset.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 04:00
by spazsinbad
Probably if you peruse the 'ukmodinamuddle' thread you will find answers for your enjoyment; does quote include support?

For simplicity the thread above was searched EMALS for:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=227211&hilit=EMALS#p227211
&
anotherie: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=223231&hilit=EMALS#p223231
U.K. Muddies Waters With Its Carrier Decision
02 Jul 2012 Francis Tusa | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"...What became apparent at a briefing held by the Defense Ministry in early May was that the cost estimates for fitting the ships with Emals and arrester gear had been either slapdash or wildly optimistic. The estimated cost of converting the second-in-class ship, HMS Prince of Wales, had more than doubled, from just under £1 billion ($1.5 billion) to £2 billion. The first-of-class ship, Queen Elizabeth II, which was more advanced in construction, would need £3 billion in modification costs. Modifications for both ships would cost £5 billion, close to what they had been expected to cost in total without them....

...One reason that the cost and time for the conversion had been so badly underestimated was a miscalculation of the impact of the modifications on the ships. At first it was hoped to confine the changes to 80 compartments (out of about 1,200), but real engineering work showed that major modifications to over 290 compartments would be required, with 250 more needing smaller modifications.

On top of this, assumptions about the cost of Emals turned out to be wide of the mark. U.K. planners had assumed that since the Emals used on the Ford-class carriers includes four catapults, and the U.K. would only need two, the cost would be half the U.S. Navy's. But as a senior ministry official said, “the cost of breaking out common systems [from Emals] turned out to be more expensive than had been thought.” ..."

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 34.xml&p=1

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 05:18
by marauder2048
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.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 05:22
by spazsinbad
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.

Without reading the FMS post again I think the quote was for long lead items - not the entire kit&kaboodle. I'll check.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=287507&hilit=EMALS+long#p287507

When UK politicians speak I doubt anyone understands but have a go here:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=228139&hilit=EMALS+parliament#p228139
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=220852&hilit=EMALS+parliament#p220852

As I recall the NAO Carrier Strike Report was useful but again it is not at the tip of my keyboard fingers - searching is cool.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=252111&hilit=EMALS+Report#p252111 gives: [I give up]

Good post for further jumps: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=221883&hilit=EMALS+Report#p221883

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 07:43
by spazsinbad
A belated YONHAP DOKDO article about F-35Bs in South Korea and on their modified flat deck ships. Quoted here earlier:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20426&p=384268&hilit=yonhap#p384268
Korea's military mulls operating F-35B stealth aircraft aboard new amphibious assault ship
25 Dec 2017 YONHAP

"South Korea's military has begun to consider operating F-35B stealth aircraft from its newest amphibious landing ship slated to be deployed in 2020, as part of efforts to strengthen its naval power, sources said Sunday. The authorities have recently discussed whether the second 14,000-ton Dokdo-class vessel can carry the F-35B fighter, a short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the US-made fifth-generation warplane.

"I understand that the military top brass have recently discussed whether they can introduce a small number of F-35B fighters and operate them aboard the new ship that has already been deployed and one to be additionally built," a military source told Yonhap News Agency, declining to be named. "As far as I know, the idea is being weighed in light of maximizing the strategic value of the vessel's capabilities," he added.

The existing Dokdo ship is seen capable of operating only transport helicopters because its deck is not made of materials that can withstand high temperatures or friction caused by fighter jet operations. "Considerations will continue about whether we can run F-35Bs by redesigning the decks of the Dokdo and the new ship that is being constructed," another source said...."

Source: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20171225000070

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 09:24
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:A belated YONHAP DOKDO article about F-35Bs in South Korea and on their modified flat deck ships. Quoted here earlier:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20426&p=384268&hilit=yonhap#p384268
Korea's military mulls operating F-35B stealth aircraft aboard new amphibious assault ship
25 Dec 2017 YONHAP

"South Korea's military has begun to consider operating F-35B stealth aircraft from its newest amphibious landing ship slated to be deployed in 2020, as part of efforts to strengthen its naval power, sources said Sunday. The authorities have recently discussed whether the second 14,000-ton Dokdo-class vessel can carry the F-35B fighter, a short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the US-made fifth-generation warplane.

"I understand that the military top brass have recently discussed whether they can introduce a small number of F-35B fighters and operate them aboard the new ship that has already been deployed and one to be additionally built," a military source told Yonhap News Agency, declining to be named. "As far as I know, the idea is being weighed in light of maximizing the strategic value of the vessel's capabilities," he added.

The existing Dokdo ship is seen capable of operating only transport helicopters because its deck is not made of materials that can withstand high temperatures or friction caused by fighter jet operations. "Considerations will continue about whether we can run F-35Bs by redesigning the decks of the Dokdo and the new ship that is being constructed," another source said...."

Source: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20171225000070



.....before we rush off to the nether world "of blowtorch melted decks", perhaps the experience of their allies in modifying LHDs might lend some insight. I'm not hearing about 100s of millions of $ and years to get the a/c aboard the Wasp or Essex!
:)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 09:54
by spazsinbad
It all depends on what the DOKDO deck is made. Do you have any details? Modifications may be expensive for DOKDO but what the heck. The F-35B is expensive. Defence is expensive. Helping stop your country from being over run is expensive.

Just about every article about DOKDO mentions the urethane covered flight deck which is supposed to be for STOVL jets - Harrier and F-35B suitable. This article mentions a ski jump under development:
LP-X Dokdo (Landing Platform Experimental) Amphibious Ship
12th of never numnuts

"...A bolt-on 45’ ski jump is under development, and the flight deck is coated with ablative urethane. Both features have no other use than V/STOL aircraft employment. Both elevators are sized to handle F-35-sized planes. None the less, the South Korean government continues to deny that it is interested in the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. If it were equipped with a ski jump board module, 15-17 meters in length, it could operate short-range and vertical landing/take-off aircraft such as the Harrier or F-35B. Ships of this type are sometimes called a semi-aircraft carrier. The flight deck is coated with special Urethane to resist heat generated from aircraft. However, Korean military authorities have made it clear that they have no plan to convert the LPX into such a semi-aircraft carrier.

A Military Review article in March 2008 looked at a modification of the Dokdo class amphibious multipurpose ship with structural differences, such as an increased hull and a ski ramp. Some discussions of such future implementation of the multi-purpose amphibious ship may have been an aviation-variant of the design of the overall form Dokdo did not anticipate a big difference, but this more detailed treatment which provided for both aviationa and amphbious moobility came to rather different conclusions.

“To cope with potential maritime disputes with neighboring countries, we need to secure aircraft carriers as soon as possible,” Rep. Chung Hee-soo of the ruling Saenuri Party and a member of the National Assembly’s Defense Committee, said 11 October 2013 during a confirmation hearing for Adm. Choi Yoon-hee, new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “For more active international peacekeeping operations, our Navy should have carriers.” According to Chung, the Navy envisions equipping the second ship of the Dokdo-class landing platform helicopter ship (LPH) with a ski ramp to operate short-range or vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft."

Source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... k/lp-x.htm

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 12:38
by tincansailor
QE2 costs about 40% of the Ford Class and has a crew size that's more in line with the USS America. If the B models proves it's value (which it will) and budget pressure calls 11 carriers into question again, I wouldn't be surprised if talks about a similar class in US resurface again. A supercarrier it ain't, but it can do some of its jobs.

[/quote]

The effectiveness of a carrier is determined by the size, and capability of it's air group, and the survivability of the ship. R0-8 has an air group about half the size of CV-66. It's been pointed out hull size is only a small part of ships cost, it's what you put into the ship that's expensive. If the UK doesn't want to spend the money to give them large air groups why build such large carriers that could theoretically carry much more?

The USN determined decades ago that CVNs are more cost effective then CVs, let alone CVLs. CVNs save fuel costs over the life of the ship. Nuclear power saves an estimated 20% of internal ships volume for aviation fuel, and ammo storage over a CV. The fleet needs fewer tankers. Every time this issue comes up you have to ask yourself the question, what would the USN gain by such a regressive move?

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 14:19
by spazsinbad
Yes you have a worry bone to worry over. However: "...If the UK doesn't want to spend the money to give them large air groups why build such large carriers that could theoretically carry much more?..." The very long thread I keep on pointing to will answer this question fully. In the proverbial nutshell: the CVFs are large to enable the required sortie generation rate - which is a KUR Key User Requirement - these are quite detailed. This link to you know where has the KURs:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=223193&hilit=User#p223193
"...KUR 6 Aircraft operation: CVF shall be able to deploy offensive air power to the sortie-generation profile specified without host-nation support;..."

Future Carrier and Joint Combat Aircraft Programmes - Second Report of Session 2005–06
13 Dec 2005 House of Commons Defence Committee

"...2. The two new aircraft carriers and the aircraft to operate from them are core elements of the ‘Carrier Strike’ capability. Carrier Strike is an ‘expeditionary air power capability that will be able to operate in uncertain access, basing and overflight conditions as part of a joint force: the fast jet element should be capable of delivering the full range of effects from both the land and sea base’. At the core of the Carrier Strike capability are the Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF), the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) and the Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) projects. The United Kingdom (UK) Ministry of Defence (MoD) has selected the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to meet the JCA requirement....

...Discussions with the United States about the Future Carrier programme
31. Extensive discussions have taken place between the UK and the US related to aircraft carriers since the inception of the UK’s CVF programme. From the outset the UK MoD has been acutely aware of the primacy of the US in the design, development, production and use of aircraft carriers.

32. Three US Navy platform programmes are relevant to CVF:
— Carriers The US has a well established programme of carriers and steel has now been cut on the $13bn first-of-class CVN21. However, US carriers are larger than the UK’s requirement demands, are mostly nuclear-powered, carry a large number of aircraft for a diverse range of tasks, and are subject to US-specific manning constraints. Nonetheless, discussions with this programme have been underway for some time and vigorous information exchange has benefited the UK in areas such as flight deck layout, sortie generation flows, air traffic management, island design, aircraft launch & recovery equipment and sustainability; conversely, the US have shown interest in UK lean-manning enablers (eg skills and habitability), weapons handling, acquisition strategy and construction methods.

— LHA(R) The US is procuring a replacement class for its LHA amphibious carriers. LHA(R) is not a Strike Carrier like CVF, being roled to provide Close Air Support to Marines ashore, but as it shares the UK’s requirement to operate the STOVL variant of JCA, a particular area of joint interest is in “ship-air integration”. The UK CVF and US LHA(R) teams have committed to working together to undertake this further work in a constructive and timely manner....

...Commodore Henley explained that the JSF programme was not a ‘work-share’ programme and that work will be allocated on the basis of ‘global best value basis’. He also told us that for development and the low-rate initial production runs the UK ‘is getting about $6.75 billion-worth of work back for our $2 billion investment’....

...Q141 Robert Key: Now the decision has been taken to change the bring-back of the characteristics of the aircraft and the reduction in weight will be achieved by having one 1,000 lb bomb not two; does that have an impact on the operational performance of the aircraft?
Commodore Henley: The requirement for the UK, if I could just clarify is actually one 1,000 lb bomb either side. The original requirement for the UK was just that. There was a requirement for the UK aircraft (and the requirement document laid it out) that we would have a 1,000 lb weapon either side so we could carry two 1,000 lb bombs. At one stage in the programme we believed that we had enough spare capacity in the STOVL aircraft to move towards a common weapons bay with the other variants, which has a 2,000 lb capacity weapon bay. That is not the same as saying you can fit two 1,000 lb bombs. It means you can fit a single 2,000 lb class weapon. The UK does not have any 2,000 lb class
weapons in its inventory, which is why a 1,000 lb class weapon was being deemed suitable
. As part of the weight reduction studies we did we reverted to the original design and therefore, no, there has been no impact on the UK requirements of that change.

Q142 Robert Key: But a reduction in the size of the bomb bay implies that you are going to put the 1,000 lb bomb in the bomb bay, so that is how you achieved your reduction in weight, or one of the ways?
Commodore Henley: No, the 1,000 lb weaponry was always going to go in the bomb bay. What we have done is to shrink the weapons bay in the aeroplane which has freed up space in the aeroplane to put other equipment and we have redistributed it so that we could get a more efficient design into the aircraft and that in turn knocks on into the weight issue...."

Source: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 54/554.pdf (0.8Mb)

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 15:35
by spazsinbad
:devil: Aahhh - the DRIVE - should we take it for a long drive and shoot it? :doh: But they imagine lots of things don't they? :roll:
Japan And South Korea Eye F-35B For Their Helicopter Carriers
26 Dec 2017 Tyler Rogoway

"Both countries are future F-35 operators and once Japan's big "helicopter destroyers" emerged, fielding the F-35B seemed like just a matter of time....

...Beyond the general dimensional requirements needed to house and operate the F-35B, other vessel-impact issues have to be taken into account as well. The aircraft's powerful and hot exhaust can severely damage a ship's deck unless it is specifically reinforced and coated with special materials. That same blast of hot and powerful gas can do damage anywhere on the ship it may pass over. So everything from catwalks, emergency life rafts, communications aerials, sensors, navigational aids, and other fixtures would need to be reinforced or relocated entirely.

The addition of a ski-jump is not necessary although it would improve the F-35B's takeoff performance [DOKDO needs one I reckon] and add an extra margin of safety. The Izumo class, which presently includes two ships, was already designed with the F-35 and V-22 in mind to some degree, and its rear elevator and expansive hangar space can already facilitate movement of either type. Japan has already ordered the Osprey and that aircraft could be a huge force multiplier for shipboard F-35B operations....

...There may also be an opportunity for either country in the form of America's soon to be surplus AV-8B Harriers. The Harrier is more compact and lighter than the F-35B that is replacing it, and its exhaust does not present the same compatibility challenges either. Obtaining a small fleet of these aircraft and introducing shipboard STOVL operations would be a far less expensive proposition as well. Turkey is presently going down this exact path.

Going the AV-8B route could be especially attractive option for South Korea, whose smaller helicopter harriers are better suited for the design and are more focused on amphibious operations in North Korea....

...Both South Korea and Japan could also leverage some of these same synergies and benefits by retooling the ships they already have even for low density F-35B operations, or by taking advantage of cheap Harriers with lots of life left in them that will be put on the auction block due to the F-35B entering widespread service with the USMC. Either way, these countries will benefit from the existence of the F-35B.

If Japan and/or South Korea move ahead with fielding the F-35B, Australia would likely follow suit as they have a pair of ships that are even better prepared to operate the stealthy strike-fighters—the Canberra class landing helicopter docks. These vessels are license-built iterations of Spain's proven Juan Carlos class design and were constructed with ski-jumps for operating STOVL jets even though the Royal Australian Navy said they had no intention of procuring them at the time.

Now that Australia is set to receive a large fleet of F-35As (72 aircraft planned and that number could grow), introducing the F-35B to their already owned and operated carriers seems almost inevitable. Once again, the Harrier could also be an option here as well, [ROGER AWAY IS ON CRACK!] but seeing as the country is a major F-35 customer already, and is set to remodel their entire air combat capability, going for the latest and greatest option seems more likely...."

Graphic: http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/found ... jdja14.jpg

Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17 ... r-carriers


Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 20:45
by marauder2048
Sounds like there's a larger market for the V-22 AEW roll-on/roll-off package.

But Bell-Boeing has not finished with tapping the V-22’s potential. Even with the aerial refueling capability, the Marines would still eventually need an airborne early waning (AEW) capability, which the L-class ships currently lack. Thus, Parker said that Boeing and its engineers are working on a roll-on/roll-off AEW package as well as an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) package, but those are still a few years down the line. There has been significant customer interest for both packages, Parker said.

Parker could not offer any details about the potential performance of a V-22-based AEW system—but it would not be a “poor man’s E-2D.”


https://scout.com/military/warrior/Arti ... -101458815

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 21:22
by spazsinbad
Over the years several different packages have been mooted for the V-22. Apart from VARS package the COD package has been taken up by the USN. Several old threads have a lot of information/diagrams about these options in the F-35 forum. I take issue with a quote that can be misleading as spoken apparently by the BOING! representative.
"...“The way the Marine Corps has asked for this capability—so you can envision a Joint Strike Fighter coming off an amphib in vertical mode, [I think this chap means 'STOVL Mode'] they can go heavy on ordnance, light on gas,” John Parker, Boeing’s global sales manager for the Osprey told reporters on March 28...."

Whilst using them on an amphib as a recovery tanker (as needed on CVNs with Shornet Recovery Tankers for fixed wing) this will be unnecessary for the F-35B unless in some emergency where they will be tanking enroute to ship. F-35Bs will plan to arrive overhead for a vertical recovery with a known amount of fuel then if a spot available they will land on it.

This guaranteed VL is part of the conops of the Harrier/F-35B making recovery tankers unnecessary but the BOING! salesman has to pitch a need where there is none eh. I'll look for internal links....

Late 2019 for USMC IOC for V-22 Osprey VARS system: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26629&p=362220&hilit=Osprey+refuel%2A#p362220

F-35B as a solution for AEWC on small deck carriers. Despite thread title V-22 AEW info in it:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52511&start=15&hilit=Osprey+refuel%2A

V-22 (& Shornet) VARS info: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26629&p=355135&hilit=Osprey+refuel%2A#p355135

Links to graphics for V-22 variants: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26629&p=300192&hilit=Osprey+graphic#p300192

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 21:52
by marauder2048
I took Parker's remarks to mean a reduced roll in STOVL mode.

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 21:58
by spazsinbad
Not sure what you mean - with maximum (external weapons) the LHA deck may not be long enough in the prevailing conditions for a full fuel load - but it will be close. Using a short T/O run with max weapons does not make a lot of sense except in some exceptional unknown circumstances that are probably not likely. Anyway V-22 variant graphic somewhere.

PDF (3.7Mb) has graphics: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26629&p=300192&hilit=Osprey+graphic#p300192

Re: F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 22:10
by marauder2048
spazsinbad wrote: Using a short T/O run with max weapons does not make a lot of sense except in some exceptional unknown circumstances that are probably not likely.


It could free up the rest of the deck for use and reduce the winds over deck requirement.

Re: F-35B