Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

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

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2662
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post26 Jun 2011, 16:33

shingen wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
shingen wrote:How much war winning load can be carried STOVL? What sensors and networking capability are better carried by a STOVL platform than anything else? Did anyone ask that before they started JAST or did they just add "Harrier Replacement" on to the list of stuff it needed to do?


Oh please, that's utter nonsense. Even Sweetman said so in his book ("Ultimate Fighter" -- Zenith Press 2004). See discussion of the Common Affordable CALF pages 37-48. From page 108 I quote -- "Despite its origins in a program called the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter the JSF is no lightweight..."; From page 100, "The F-22 has four tails because it had to meet requirements for both stealth and agility...The F-35 has four tails because it has to land on a carrier...". From page 101, "The hard fact is, though, that the four tail layout is not the lightest or most efficient layout for the STOVL or CTOL airplanes."


What about all the space for the fan?


Fuel. That's why the A and C jets have so much range on internal fuel only.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

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

Unread post26 Jun 2011, 22:31

underhill wrote:Why so angry? You hate light carriers; you hate supercarriers. Is there any course of action (not involving regression to crossbows) that would make you happy? You've done nothing but complain on this thread. Why don't you tell us your ideas to fix whatever's pi$$ing you off?

I don't hate supercarriers - I have mixed feelings. They're very useful but they cost too much and institutional inertia has long prevented anyone from doing anything about it.

I don't hate light carriers. But you can't have a light carrier with a fighter that's bigger than an F-4. Or a well designed light carrier that's also an LHA/LHD.

Fix? Determine how many JSFs the USAF can afford to buy and operate, which will be well south of 1,000. The fallout from that will be that the B is ridiculously expensive, while the Super Hornet, versus the C, becomes the 80-plus per cent solution for 50-minus per cent of the price.

If you want Marine air, think of a smaller A-10 with big flaps and thrust reversers operating in STOBAR mode. Or a Harrier III with an off-the-shelf engine core and fly-by-wire.

What does pi$$ me off is that the longer we delay the inevitable drawdown the more it will cost.


No... words. :lmao:
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 06:14

madrat wrote: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.


And they would do what on destroyers and frigates? They'd have to be lifted off by cranes. The F-35B is STOVL, not VTOL.

SpudmanWP wrote:It all comes down to Sortie rate. For the A/B/C it it 3.68/6.51/4.05.

As you can see, the forward-deployed F-35B can almost do twice the missions as a rear-deployed F-35A (1.77x) or F-35C (1.61x).


The sortie rate is nothing but hype and it leaves out the fact that it can't be systematized because the B's inherently higher maintenance rate. The F-35B will be a good airplane, but STOVL comes with a lot of best case scenario hype. Real world, STOVL's big advantage is that you can theoretically get a bigger plane on a smaller ship.

underhill wrote:Someone's cranky-pants are a little tight today.

I should have suggested Sea Gripen but you would have had a stroke.

How hard would it be to install arrest gear (much smaller than a 140-kt, 50 klb+ CV fit) on an LHA/D? Easier than making the deck heatproof...


Very hard considering they would have to rebuild the ship to do it. Which they wouldn't by the way because its a troop transport, not a carrier. The Harriers are a bonus.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2300
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 06:31

Yes, the F-35B is a STOVL. The USN is not set up for STOVL operations, they are geared for CATOBAR. The USMC is trying to force their way onto the deck space that really should be occupied by aircraft revolving around CATOBAR operations. The F-35B can perform VTOL without carrying much more of a load than fuel. The USMC basically needs to hitch a ride to the scene or fly them in which adds to the wear and tear. My point is that the F-35B plays no role in the current USN force structure.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23321
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 09:14

madrat said: "...The USMC is trying to force their way onto the deck space that really should be occupied by aircraft revolving around CATOBAR operations...." No longer. The USMC decided to buy a bunch of F-35Cs and make a committment to use them with the USN whilst also the USMC will buy a bunch of F-35Bs. Did you miss that news?

madrat said: "...The F-35B can perform VTOL without carrying much more of a load than fuel...." VTOL=Vertical Take Off & Landing. The F-35B is not going to be operated as a Vertical Take Off aircraft except one would imagine in an emergency. Yes VTOs will be performed in the testing cycle now underway. I could point to the KPPs for F-35B for STO but you know them. The F-35B was designed as a STOVL aircraft. Short Take Off Vertical Landing....

USMC and USN aircraft always hitch a ride to the scene on their respective flat decks or yes they fly there. You lost me on your final point. AFAIK the USMC will fly their F-35Bs for themselves. That is the point.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

underhill

Banned

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

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 11:54

madrat - You are right about the LHA/LHDs being troop (+materiel) carriers but it would be interesting to look at what could be accomplished in straight-deck ops with a relatively lightweight STOL design.
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5411
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 12:52

underhill wrote:Someone's cranky-pants are a little tight today.

Hey, I'm not the one who starts screaming for his binky everytime someone disagrees with me.

underhill wrote:I should have suggested Sea Gripen but you would have had a stroke.


Yeah, there is such a thing as too much laughter. :lmao:

underhill wrote:How hard would it be to install arrest gear (much smaller than a 140-kt, 50 klb+ CV fit) on an LHA/D? Easier than making the deck heatproof...


Yeah, that must be why they had arresting gear and cats on the Kievs. Oh, wait. . . Maybe you could explain how they do a bolter on a straight deck.

underhill wrote:Aircraft in the same weight and price band? Typhoon, Rafale, Shornet, all of which can beat 450nm and 3000 pounds without too much trouble.


My mistake. I should have said "useful aircraft".
"There I was. . ."
Offline

underhill

Banned

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

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 15:58

My mistake. I should have said "useful aircraft".

Of course. Totally useless aircraft, all of them.

Much better off with an F-22 that can drop two JDAMs on someone else's coordinates when it isn't grounded.

Or an F-35 that can't do squat operationally for another seven years, if nothing else goes wrong (hahaha!)

Your chauvinism is showing (over the waistband of your cranky pants).

Bolter? You do clear-deck operations (which absent a JBD is how you'll do F-35 STO).
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 16:00
  • Location: UK

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 16:40

underhill wrote:Or an F-35 that can't do squat operationally for another seven years,


That's rich coming from someone who was suggesting the Sea Gripen (snigger) would be a wonderful aircraft to have just a few posts back.

You're just not putting the thought into your trolling thesedays are you. :wink:
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 16:49

Question for Underhill:

I want to know what kind of force structure you advocate. How should the US build the capability to do all of the nation building, low intensity conflict and possible conflict with a well armed, or even competent foe? Would you support a force with lots of A-10's, some kind of bomb truck, lots of UCAVs and then a few silver bullets? What would you do with the 4th gen planes in the US inventory, upgrade, build more?

Like to get an answer, not trying to troll you.
Offline

underhill

Banned

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

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 17:08

I wasn't serious about the Sea Gripen - just trying (with some success) to wind up Sferrin. Not really a straight-deck jet.

Shingen - Now, Gripen NGs for the Guard and Reserve, for homeland defense and CAS...

The answer starts by getting rid of the FifthGenerationTM horsepuckey and thinking capabilities. Overall, airpower in the future will need high-end and low-end capabilities.

High-end to go against threats that are designed against F-35s, not just defensively but asymmetrically (like an ASBM that pushes the carrier back beyond fighter range). Lower end for nation-building and security.

We're still building F-18s, and will do so until 2015. Today's Eagle is an incredible weapons platform, and survivable with standoff weapons and advanced EW. Could we recap some forces with an F-16 similar to Israel's? Would it really cost as much as an F-35?

But we also may need the long-range strike family, including extreme LO (which will still be hard to beat).

F-35-class VLO is not worthless. But as long as we are thinking China, neither it nor most other tac aircraft can get there from land bases, because when it started we were just beginning to stop thinking Europe (500nm) and thinking MidEast (700 nm).
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
Offline

shingen

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 582
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
  • Location: California

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 17:16

Why Gripen instead of F-16?
Offline

underhill

Banned

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

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 17:21

Operating costs and a mature but advanced approach to networking.

Plus with the F414 EPE it will go like a scalded-ass ape.
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 20:34

U - Now, Gripen NGs for the Guard and Reserve, for homeland defense and CAS...

Don’t understand why you suggest the Gripen NG?
The US and flying a European jet as also one of there main fighters.
Don’t think this will ever happen.
A f16 advanced would be a more plausible option.

Secondly why suggesting a fighter also in development, as the F35 is?
A demonstrator, but a NG still is not yet build.
When the Swedish don’t succeed in selling the NG, there even is quite a change
no Gripen NG will be build.
As stated by the Swedish government al least one significant order is needed
to produce the NG version.
In your opion the F35 is a risk, but isn't the Gripen a risk too?
Offline

hobo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 324
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 14:39

Unread post27 Jun 2011, 21:29

Operating costs and a mature but advanced approach to networking.

Plus with the F414 EPE it will go like a scalded-a$$ ape.



Yes, faster planes are really cool. That is what we need. Faster. (Hello, fanboy?)

and another new/incompatible datalink would be a really welcome addition too.


Tell me in your mind(since that is what we are talking about here) how much "faster" a Gripen NG would be than a late model F-16, and what exactly do you think that would enable a Gripen to do that the F-16 couldn't?

I mean if the Gripen is a scalded ape, what is the F-16? A startled cat? Can you maybe convert your fanboy units over into something useful for those of us who don't rely on animal analogies when thinking about fighters?



Anyway, I think everyone can get behind this wonderful plan for an immature, but marginally faster plane with an incompatible datalink. Those are game changing capabilities right there and the ape feature sounds cool too.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest