Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23507
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 May 2011, 05:39

THERMION Extract actually is from the 3.5Mb PDF here: (my error getting URLs mixed up)

Corrosion Prevention & Control S&T
Mega Rust Conference 2010 - 08 June 2010
Airan J. Perez - Office of Naval Research

http://www.nstcenter.com/docs/PDFs/MR20 ... emieux.pdf
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post24 May 2011, 16:06

Looks like the Wasp sailed Apr 27 after BAE Systems' Portsmouth finished PMA for JSF tests. I hope the Thermion –Aluminum Ceramic Thermal Spray (TH604) holds up, testing looked good. If the "Bee" is ready to swarm aboard, June would be a good month to get started. Good Luck to the Wasp and the "Bee". :)

I wonder if the Themion is used on the JBDs on the CVNs? I see the Bush is using space shuttle tiles :roll: , we'll see.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23507
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 May 2011, 09:11

Word (reliable? I have no idea) from another forum says that two BFs go to sea in October, with WASP deck recoated already.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23507
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Jun 2011, 19:58

Flying the Sea Harrier: a test pilot’s perspective By Peter Collins, Flight International 20/04/09

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ctive.html

“Royal Navy Cdr Nigel "Sharkey" Ward and the Royal Air Force's David Morgan gained their place in British military folklore by flying the navy's British Aerospace Sea Harrier FRS1 fighter with distinction during the 1982 Falklands War.

Flight International's UK test pilot Peter Collins offers a rare insight on flying the "SHAR", having sailed south aboard the rapidly completed aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious as the combat action drew to a close.

Freshly posted to Germany as an RAF Harrier GR3 ground-attack pilot, Collins was recalled to the UK after the war broke out and diverted to the Fleet Air Arm for a short tour flying the Sea Harrier. Type conversion was con-ducted with 899 NAS at RNAS Yeovilton in Somerset between June and July 1982.

"My first memory is of my first FRS1 familiarisation flight, including 'Ski Jump' launch," says Collins. "The FRS1 cockpit wasn't like the GR3's at all, with the engine and critical aircraft systems instrumentation on the left [rather than the right], to allow space for the Blue Fox radar display. There was no Sea Harrier T-Bird [two-seat trainer] and no simulator training; just a quick cockpit self-assessment in the last FRS1 left in the UK. And then go: taxi up to the very bottom of the ramp, gaze upwards at what looked like Mount Snowdon (the ramp was set at the maximum angle of around 18°), remember some words of wisdom from somewhere, pause, slam the throttle, depart the lip, take nozzles and fly away. Piece of cake!"

Collins then moved aboard HMS Illustrious – aka "Lusty" – with 809 NAS for the voyage to the South Atlantic. The vessel arrived in the Falkland Islands Protection Zone in late August, with its SHARs flying combat air patrol sorties to plug a gap until a new landing strip could be completed for the RAF.

Recalling one experience, Collins says: "It was a perfect day, but Lusty was heaving in a massive swell and the flight deck was pitching through 6°. I manoeuvred into my launch position while Flyco [Flying Co-ordination] had a think about it. Through my forward canopy the entire world alternated from completely bright blue to completely bright green (the sea was alive with plankton) as the ship pitched through more angles than I had ever seen before. Refusing the launch is mutiny: it has to be done by the pilot slamming the throttle as the deck starts to pitch down. Thankfully Flyco scrubbed the launch!" Illustrious returned home after two months of duty, with Collins having logged a total of 66 deck landings.

"I am immensely proud of my short time with the Fleet Air Arm," says Collins. "I wish them every continued success as a uniquely professional element of our fighting services.”
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23507
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Jun 2011, 04:06

Libyan Operation Continues To Make Case For STOVL F-35 Author: Daniel Goure, Ph.D.
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/libya ... a=1&c=1171

"The ongoing NATO air campaign in Libya is providing two interrelated lessons for the future of the Alliance as a military instrument. The first is you play with what you pay for. Or in the case of NATO it might be stated if you don’t pay you cannot play. The lack of investment by this country’s European allies has led to shortages of everything from targeteers, refueling aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and combat search and rescue helicopters to precision munitions.

The second, related lesson is the value of VSTOL/STOVL aircraft. When a U.S. F-15 went down in April, it was a combination of V-22s and Harrier jump jets operating from a Navy amphibious warfare platform in the Mediterranean that rescued one of the two crewmen. Since the time the U.S. withdrew combat forces from the operation, Harriers have continued to prove their worth in the hands of U.S. allies. Defense News carried a very interesting article in its June 20 edition about the Italian Navy’s operation of Harriers from the aircraft carrier Garibaldi. The Italian Harriers have been used for both air superiority and strike operations employing Litening II targeting pods and both Paveway II and JDAM precision munitions. The ability to operate close in to Libya’s shores both enhances responsiveness and reduces costs.

The U.S. and Italian experience employing their Harriers makes the case for the STOVL Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35B. As the head of Italian naval aviation, Rear Adm. Paulo Treu, observed “Having a carrier in 2020 that uses legacy aircraft in a threat situation means having a carrier you cannot use. Carrier-based Harriers are a valid instrument for intervention for Italy, whether far from home or close by as in Libya. If Italy wants to keep this capability it needs the JSF.”

Pity poor Britain, which decided to cancel its acquisition of the F-35B in favor of the conventional carrier variant. An equally good aircraft, the F-35C requires a full deck carrier. The British are building two, one to use and one to mothball. But because the Cameron government has decided to retire the British Harriers, the two existing carriers will only operate helicopters until such time as they are decommissioned.

So today it is the Italian navy that is providing responsive air assets for the Libyan campaign using Harriers launched from its aircraft carrier. Britain is forced to fly Tornado and Typhoon jets from Italian airbases with all the refueling that requires and the wear and tear on pilots and aircraft. This conflict signals the end of Great Britain as a naval power. It also underscores the value to NATO and its members of having a weapons system as flexible as the F-35B in future conflicts."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post24 Jun 2011, 05:21

Good article, I never really understood why the UK decided to ditch small carriers in light of what the F-35B has to offer. Like the QE class, the Italian carrier was also designed with the F-35B in mind, but its size represents more realistic expectations of what a European nation can afford to operate. Some in the US are also taking this into consideration, as can be seen in the article below.

Are Aircraft Carriers Slowly Becoming Obsolete?
By David Axe June 22, 2011 | 10:41 am | Categories: Navy


For seven decades, they’ve been the ultimate symbol of American power. When conflicts break out across the globe, U.S. Navy aircraft carriers — fast, mobile and each packing more firepower than most countries’ entire air force — have been the first responders, more of than than not. “When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it’s no accident the first question that comes to everyone’s lips is: where is the nearest carrier?” Bill Clinton famously said.

But today’s 1,000-foot-long, nuclear-powered supercarriers and their air wings are expensive, costing up to $15 billion just to build. Plus, the latest anti-ship missiles could render them vulnerable to attack. It’s for those reasons that one influential Navy officer is proposing the Pentagon rethink its approach to building and deploying carriers.

Instead of today’s small number of gigantic carriers, the Navy of the future should operate a larger number of smaller flattops, Capt. Jerry Hendrix asserts in the pages of Proceedings magazine. “Moving away from highly expensive and vulnerable supercarriers toward smaller, light carriers would bring the additional benefit of increasing our nation’s engagement potential.”

It would also spread out U.S. naval air power instead of concentrating it in just a few places, where it can be more easily knocked out.

Hendrix’s controversial argument is the subject of my first piece for AOL’s new military website.


To be clear: no one, including Hendrix, is claiming big carriers will become totally obsolete overnight. Besides the U.S., Britain, India and especially China are all building brand-new large carriers, though none quite as big as America’s 11 Nimitz- and Enterprise-class ships, each displacing around 100,000 tons. Hendrix insists the Navy keep some of its nuclear supercarriers as a “heavy surge force” capable of steaming into action during a major crisis.

Outgoing secretary of defense Robert Gates echoed that sentiment in a speech last year.

But for routine patrols, the Navy should have a larger number of smaller flattops. Hendrix doesn’t propose a specific number, but he does point out that three, 40,000-ton light carriers could be had for the price of one supercarrier.

A light carrier is viable because of a shift in the way air power is used. During the Cold War, the Navy’s focus was generating at many fighter sorties as possible within the first few days of a full-scale conflict. After all, big shooting wars weren’t expected to last very long. Supercarriers are optimized for that kind of “big and fast” fighting.

Today, conflicts tend to be drawn-out, low-intensity affairs requiring fewer but longer sorties by sea-launched planes. Carriers don’t need to embark as many fighters, or launch them as often. That’s why a smaller carrier is possible, according to Hendrix.

He believes the future light carrier is already taking shape at a shipyard in Mississippi, though the Navy doesn’t call the vessel that. America, the first of a new class of amphibious assault ships, “has the potential to be a new generation of light aircraft carrier,” Hendrix writes.

America, slated to enter service is designed to carry more than a thousand Marines into battle, shuttling them ashore with V-22 tiltrotors. Like previous assault ships, America can carry Harrier jump jets (pictured) and, eventually, the Marines’ vertical-landing F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. The difference is how many fighters America can carry: up to 30, compared to the four or five Harriers routinely embarked on today’s assault ships and around 50 F/A-18 Hornet fighters on each supercarrier.

Unlike many observers, Hendrix has high hopes for the late, over-budget F-35 — particularly the B model, which has been the most troubled of the three variants. “I’m concerned about the cost overruns on JSF, but I see that this [plane] could be very important in the future,” Hendrix tells Danger Room.

Armed, carrier-launched drones could complement the F-35B, Hendrix adds. The Northrop Grumman X-47B, the world’s first’s carrier-capable combat Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, flew for the first time in February. The Navy wants a follow-on killer drone to start populating carrier decks before 2018.

Small flattops carrying drones and stealthy jump jets would help “adapt the fleet away from its current course to a new design for a new era,” Hendrix writes. But he admits his proposal faces stiff opposition from the Navy’s entrenched supercarrier boosters. “A lot of people don’t like the America,” he tells Danger Room.

Even Gates was forced to backtrack after his speech last year criticizing the Navy’s over-reliance on huge flattops. “I am not going to cut a carrier. Okay?” Gates said. “But people ought to start thinking about how they are going to use carriers in a time when you have highly accurate cruise and ballistic missiles that can take out a carrier.”

To Hendrix, that means having more carriers. And that means they need to be smaller.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2339
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post24 Jun 2011, 11:15

Gates is thinking light carriers are the future, but that's obsolete thinking. Stealth carriers will fill the void, not light carriers. Stealth carriers will be smaller, but they will never be light. The larger the carrier the more efficient use of resources. There is a lot of ocean to hide in and until our enemies shrink the oceans considerably the carrier has a role.

I personally think they should focus on dispersing USMC F-35B to guided-missile destroyers and frigates. Save the flattops for more important roles. Create a foldout platform, rail system, or helicopter-buddy procedure for them to take off and recover from a position not on the limited deck space so that a helicopter can still operate from the same ship.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post24 Jun 2011, 23:19

madrat wrote:I personally think they should focus on dispersing USMC F-35B to guided-missile destroyers and frigates.


I'm thinking you don't know very much about any of these 3 weapon systems. Do a little research on these platforms before you make comments. I'm actually a little embarrassed for you.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2339
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 04:07

Wow, an attempt at ad hominem. You should feel embarrassed but for your own reasons. Light carriers are an inefficient use of resources which is why the USN avoids them. That has been argued out ad nauseum. You win wars with logistics and the light carrier although cheaper to buy is a nightmare to keep supplied.
Offline

psychmike

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 231
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2004, 20:09

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 04:52

Madrat: I'm a little confused. If small carriers are inefficient as you state, how would dispersing fighters onto even smaller ships be a good idea? Would each destroyer and frigate carry commonly used spare parts? Would engine, avionics, etc. technicians be assigned to these smaller ships to deal with routine after-flight maintenance? Would the smaller ships be able to carry adequate aviation fuel and munitions? I'm not sure that such relatively small ships would be able to realistically support a high performance jet.
Last edited by psychmike on 25 Jun 2011, 05:34, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 05:02

madrat wrote:Wow, an attempt at ad hominem. You should feel embarrassed but for your own reasons. Light carriers are an inefficient use of resources which is why the USN avoids them. That has been argued out ad nauseum. You win wars with logistics and the light carrier although cheaper to buy is a nightmare to keep supplied.


Trying to cover up the stupidity of your F-35s-on-a-DDG/CG suggestion with a shrill, Latin-filled response is just a band-aid for your hurt ego. I know that CVNs represent a better economy of scale when it comes to intensive TACAIR operations. The article I posted says as much. What's being explored on this thread is whether or not smaller carriers might have some advantages in certain situations.

If you insist on behaving like an Admiral scared of losing funding for the FORD class, then I suggest you go start your own thread about why supercarriers "rule" and light carriers "suck."
Offline

underhill

Banned

  • Posts: 488
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2008, 17:09

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 12:12

Everyone here (together with the author of the Proceedings article and Mr Axe) should be looking at the evolution of the UK carrier.

Starting with a clean sheet of paper, the UK looked at missions, and concluded correctly that the carrier was a self-licking lollipop unless it could sustain CAP and mount offensive ops at the same time. It also needed space for AEW of some kind.

That drove SGR, which drove air wing size, which given the size of the JSF and its personnel, fuel and ordnance requirements, determined the size of the ship.

By the way, the LHA/LHD class are not aircraft carriers - the basic design precedes the USMC Harrier. LHA-6/7, with the well deck removed to support fuel-hog JSFs and V-22s more realistically, are a garbage compromise and LHA-8 will revert to the well deck.

The good news here is that the B is clearly in trouble, which is why someone has paid Goure to shill for it.
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2339
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 12:49

503,

The F-35B just needs to be ferried in to range of the shore. In all honesty it's not worth taking up deckspace on the big flattops. And it's too resource thirsty for the other flattops. Why shackle the aircraft and helicopter carriers for a fighter that doesn't belong on either? Seriously, guy, you're too emotionally tied to the whole idea of F-35B.

And for the record my idea for a light carrier is solely for sending COIN-related aircraft into parts of the globe where it's purely a low intensity conflict situation. I'm arguing that we need a sustainable force to attack terrorists in an effort to keep our country from spending too much money on the WoT.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2734
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 13:05

underhill wrote:Everyone here (together with the author of the Proceedings article and Mr Axe) should be looking at the evolution of the UK carrier.

Starting with a clean sheet of paper, the UK looked at missions, and concluded correctly that the carrier was a self-licking lollipop unless it could sustain CAP and mount offensive ops at the same time. It also needed space for AEW of some kind.

That drove SGR, which drove air wing size, which given the size of the JSF and its personnel, fuel and ordnance requirements, determined the size of the ship.

By the way, the LHA/LHD class are not aircraft carriers - the basic design precedes the USMC Harrier. LHA-6/7, with the well deck removed to support fuel-hog JSFs and V-22s more realistically, are a garbage compromise and LHA-8 will revert to the well deck.

The good news here is that the B is clearly in trouble, which is why someone has paid Goure to shill for it.


Yep, and they came up with a 65K ton design that was a fraction of the cost of a FORD -- and yet, still not affordable.

Gates' question was about the relevance of all that 'sustained CAP" and 'AEW of some kind' in a world where ballistic missiles were the primary threat against that ship. And, of course, if the answer is, 'not every scenario will have the ship facing that kind of threat' -- then the next question is, "why do we need the $14B option?"

The history of UK 'carrier' design is all about money -- what the nation can afford to buy. Unless something changes, with FORDs at $14B per, the US story is following the same arc.
Offline

underhill

Banned

  • Posts: 488
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2008, 17:09

Unread post25 Jun 2011, 13:40

I'm not saying that you could not build a cheaper carrier than the Ford.

However, the US won't do that due to:

1 - Political inertia/momentum. The carrier-building constituency is powerful and dedicated and will always maximize the cost/risk of a new carrier.

2 - Much of the LCC of the carrier is manpower. The USN mans its ships up the wazoo to do damage control. (Since most of the time, the carrier is not on fire, the crew get insanely bored, hence the difficulty of command and the recent rash of senior officer sackings.) But if you want a 5000-man carrier, reducing tonnage and switching to gas turbine won't save you much over the ship's 40-year lifetime.
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests