F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 09:42
by gergf-14
This seems to be wasted deck space.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 10:08
by spazsinbad
:devil: Seriously :roll: LSOs are a WASTE of SPACE :doh: :twisted: but funnily prolly 'stuff' will fill that 'space' eventually. F-35Cs???

Interesting deck use comparo (do not know accuracy of placement of aircraft) scale is probably wonky also but whatever: https://static.businessinsider.com/imag ... /image.jpg "NIMITZ class lower compared to FORD 'upper class'"
&
http://nns.huntingtoningalls.com/wp-con ... -cvn78.png NOT part of the flight deck at all.
:devil: [highlighted above for the sake of clarity] :doh:

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 13:40
by gergf-14
Yeah spaz you probably right, with heads like that, it is a wonder how they manage to pass through the door ways below! :devil:

It just seems like wasted space by not squaring it off, unless they also need a tanning section on long cruises....! :D

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 13:50
by ricnunes
gergf-14 wrote:Yeah spaz you probably right, with heads like that, it is a wonder how they manage to pass through the door ways below! :devil:

It just seems like wasted space by not squaring it off, unless they also need a tanning section on long cruises....! :D


Using that same section for tanning wouldn't be a bad idea at all, unless you're cruising around the North Atlantic or Artic circle...
However as you can easily see, that same section is used to install SAM launchers (you know, those things that shoot missiles against incoming hostile aircraft and/or missiles :devil: ) and the "empty" space around the SAM launcher is probably there for expandability reasons (to install a second SAM launcher, a gun system, a new fire control radar, a tanning section, etc...) or it can simply be used to store SAM missile reloads (in order to quickly reload that SAM launcher) :wink:

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 14:53
by count_to_10
There was a video posted in another thread of a Navy officer discussing the development of the Ford class, and in it, he said that the missing piece of the deck was deliberate. Essentially, one group of operators demanded the gap be their so that another group of operators wouldn’t be tempted to park an aircraft there. Something about being dangerous for landing aircraft in certain circumstances. According to him, the box there is a plasma waste disposal unit.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 15:30
by spazsinbad
:devil: [DID I FORGET THE <SARC> TAG?!] 3 times wasted space - what are they thinking - bits of deck missing everywhere: https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... 5491-1.jpg Japanese Helo Carrier is ISE.
"USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) and USS Nimitz (CVN-68) and their attached strike groups transit the Western Pacific with ships from the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force. US Navy Photo"



Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 18:56
by wrightwing
They've got to make room for the LSO and ESSM/SeaRAM/CIWS defensive systems, somewhere. Wasted isn't a very good adjective.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 21:53
by spazsinbad
gergf-14 wrote:Yeah spaz you probably right, with heads like that, it is a wonder how they manage to pass through the door ways below! :devil:

It just seems like wasted space by not squaring it off, unless they also need a tanning section on long cruises....! :D

<sarc on><sarc off>

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 22:19
by botsing
Why was the F-35 specifically mentioned in the subject ("F-35C wasted deck space") ? Or is this just another trolling attempt?

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 22:28
by spazsinbad
:devil: :drool: Xackerly - how was the F-35C relevant and hence my first line first post TRIPLE QUESTION MARKs. :doh: :mrgreen:

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 22:28
by neptune
botsing wrote:Why was the F-35 specifically mentioned in the subject ("F-35C wasted deck space") ? Or is this just another trolling attempt?


YES, OF COURSE!, infantile at that!
:oops:

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2017, 23:42
by quicksilver
gergf-14 wrote:This seems to be wasted deck space.


Another crock o' crap.

It's not deck space; it's space below the flight deck.

Are you a troll or an idiot?

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 00:20
by spazsinbad
I pick both and the game is 'whereis the F-35C?' - it is stealthily invisible.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 01:01
by nutshell
Wow, US Carriers groups.

To me, it's the most badass and imposing thing in the world.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 01:10
by spazsinbad
<sarc ON> :devil: Is this song about EngineFreakinEars? :devil: <sarc STILL ON>

<SARC OFF> :devil:

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 01:41
by tincansailor
gergf-14 wrote:This seems to be wasted deck space.



I wouldn't consider it wasted deck space. Your talking about the aft end of the flight deck, that you primarily use for landing. The amount of deck space your losing, is about enough for parking two aircraft. In return your gaining a fine position for a NATO Sea Sparrow launcher. It has a clear field of fire on the port side. It looks like there's enough room to add a Sea Ram, or maybe a laser. In earlier carriers you had to have over hanging sponsons to mount defensive systems.

My only concern is a really bad landing could go off the deck, and hit the Sea Sparrow. It's an unmanned position, and that armored box it pretty secured vs. the warheads cooking off. I think it should work out fine.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 04:15
by h-bomb
tincansailor wrote: I wouldn't consider it wasted deck space. Your talking about the aft end of the flight deck, that you primarily use for landing. The amount of deck space your losing, is about enough for parking two aircraft. In return your gaining a fine position for a NATO Sea Sparrow launcher. It has a clear field of fire on the port side. It looks like there's enough room to add a Sea Ram, or maybe a laser. In earlier carriers you had to have over hanging sponsons to mount defensive systems.

My only concern is a really bad landing could go off the deck, and hit the Sea Sparrow. It's an unmanned position, and that armored box it pretty secured vs. the warheads cooking off. I think it should work out fine.


I wish I could find the Youtube video of one of the officers from the design committee. He talks about the history from the late 1990's through early 2000's. He makes several statements, including the reduction of the radars to 3 systems cost an extra $1 billion, and it was his fault. He also stated that area is open and the NAVAIR members insisted you could not park on it as it would block the line of site for the LSO's. So they left it open. He talked about the location of the island was also an airwing request. And some history of the Enterprise to Nimitz to Ford changes in the reactor room watches and simplification. I knew the enterprise had 8 reactors, never knew she had a grand total of 32 steam turbines (drive and power).

I tried to find it in my history but I seem to have stopped watching youtube in 2015....

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 06:28
by spazsinbad
Good catch. I recall reading somewhere about aircraft parked in LSO line of sight used to be an issue on old USN non nuke driven carriers. Then it was a matter of not parking aircraft that did that during flight ops IIRC. F-35Cs won't be there eh.

However one needs to look at old aircraft carrier decks to see where LSOs stood on the flight deck, and / or in relation to the flight deck landing area. Some used to be on the side of the flight deck, often some distance from the foul line. In the photo provided we see them close to the foul line on the flight deck edge with the sponson now underneath them. So it all depends on a few criteria and I'm not going to look at various USN aircraft carrier decks over the last seventy-five years.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 14:09
by sferrin
gergf-14 wrote:This seems to be wasted deck space.



It's pretty obvious why they left it. Those "unused" areas tend to get stuffed with things like weapons and antennas. Now they have somewhere to put them when (not if) more space is needed down the road. Nice click-bait / troll thread title BTW. :roll:

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 14:47
by gergf-14
All that for LSO’s, isn’t the Ford class carriers a technological leap forward with a more automated approach to landing especially.

Perhaps a laser installation later on once ready? Who knows.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2017, 20:04
by spazsinbad
gergf-14 wrote:All that for LSO’s, isn’t the Ford class carriers a technological leap forward with a more automated approach to landing especially.

Perhaps a laser installation later on once ready? Who knows.

Thanks for playing. You seem to misunderstand the role of LSOs. LSOs monitored the X-47B robot auto landings, with the power to wave them off if those robots were not 'on speed, on glideslope and on line up'. Even robots are 'human'. Safety of flight - safety during a carrier approach is vital to all concerned on an aircraft carrier hence why they are practiced, monitored and graded. IF the LSO says you cannot deck land - you cannot - and you go back to the beach for more FCLP.

As mentioned by many others the space shown is NOT part of the flight deck like CVNs before this one. However the sponson can accommodate other things in future in the free space as mentioned by many others - laser weapons - yes.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 00:45
by 010137
gergf-14 wrote:All that for LSO’s, isn’t the Ford class carriers a technological leap forward with a more automated approach to landing especially.

Perhaps a laser installation later on once ready? Who knows.


All about new space “down below” in the hangar and work centers. Useful space up top is a non-player due to line of sight for the LSO’s.

This jet is very stable around the ship and will make the process much easier in the long run, especially compared to legacy jets. That being said, a pitching deck at night will never be easy in any aircraft. LSO’s are a must dance at the ship, regardless of aircraft type. Day, steady deck there isn’t a whole lot for them to do most of the time. Night, 0 illum, with a moving deck they will literally save lives regardless of aircraft type.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 01:17
by 35_aoa
010137 wrote:All about new space “down below” in the hangar and work centers. Useful space up top is a non-player due to line of sight for the LSO’s.

This jet is very stable around the ship and will make the process much easier in the long run, especially compared to legacy jets. That being said, a pitching deck at night will never be easy in any aircraft. LSO’s are a must dance at the ship, regardless of aircraft type. Day, steady deck there isn’t a whole lot for them to do most of the time. Night, 0 illum, with a moving deck they will literally save lives regardless of aircraft type.


Yep......turns out you can still throw a turd pass with PLM/"Magic Carpet", and that isn't even a pitching deck MOVLAS recovery......in that scenario, getting aboard first pass is all about LSO skill, and timing/luck, automation has still not cracked that nut. PLM "rate" mode is the best way to do it in that scenario, but ultimately, you are still using the same technique you did with a manual pass, just a little more precise.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 01:39
by spazsinbad
:roll: Geez I had to look up 'PLM' Precision Landing Mode. :doh: Still no mention by OP of significance of F-35C. 8)

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 03:30
by rheonomic
35_aoa wrote:"Magic Carpet".


I really hope the Navy gave whomever came up with that acronym some sort of medal.

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 03:31
by 35_aoa
spazsinbad wrote::roll: Geez I had to look up 'PLM' Precision Landing Mode. :doh: Still no mention by OP of significance of F-35C. 8)


Don't worry....some Paddles mentioned "PA CAS" the other day, and I was like, WTF are you talking about now? Turns out, that is the new name for the normal FCS operating mode the F/A-18 community has been flying since 1978.....ie CAS (Control Augmentation System) mode of the FCS.....which actually meant something in the legacy that also had DEL (both digital and analog backup) and MECH reversion modes .....but in the Rhino, you only have CAS....or you have "no longer flying" mode I suppose :)

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2017, 03:51
by spazsinbad
:doh: Are you from HOLLAND because that is all DOUBLE DUTCH to me. :mrgreen: :roll:

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 20:58
by botsing
spazsinbad wrote::doh: Are you from HOLLAND because that is all DOUBLE DUTCH to me. :mrgreen: :roll:

The Netherlands you mean? :mrgreen:

Re: F-35C wasted deck space?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 21:24
by spazsinbad
:devil: :doh: Yep that is where my question came from: MY NETHER REGIONS (where the sun don't shine). :twisted: :roll: 8) :mrgreen: