Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20872
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Oct 2011, 07:57

Leaning on Amphibs, JSFs U.S. Navy/Marine Team Can Strike on Smaller Scale
By Lt. Gen. Emerson N. Gardner : 10 October 2011

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=COM

"When the Libya situation arose in March, there were no U.S. aircraft carriers operating in the Mediterranean. Seven months later, there still aren't. Yet U.S. Marine AV-8B Harriers launched from the sea were among the first aircraft to strike targets in support of the U.N. operation to protect civilians....

...Although a 40,000-ton amphibious assault ship does not provide the strike capability of a 100,000-ton nuclear aircraft carrier, amphibious ships doubling as strike platforms can still throw a hard punch while costing only 40 percent as much as a CVN.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War and again in the 2003 "March to Baghdad," large-deck amphibious ships were optimized for fixed-wing operations and became "Harrier carriers," averaging up to 30 combat sorties per day on a sustained basis, with periodic surges to 60 sorties in a day....

...Amphibious ships that include a 2,000-man Marine Expeditionary Unit equipped with infantrymen, helicopters and logistics are actually better suited for these kinds of missions than a seven-to-10-ship, 10,000-man carrier battle group....

...the F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighter, a world-class aircraft in terms of stealth, sensors and range. When you only have room for a few aircraft (amphibious assault ships will carry six to 20), those aircraft need to be multifunctional and effective.

Whether operating from ships or damaged runways, the F-35B fills that bill....

...the U.S. will nearly double its strike-capable capital ships (there are nine amphibious assault ships, with plans to go to 11), making the fleet more effective in more places for less money long into the 21st century....

...We must capitalize on the investment we have already made in our amphibious assault ships and in the development of the F-35B STOVL aircraft to operate from them...."

READ the ENTIRE Article at the URL por favor.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20872
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 02:27

Wayback near beginning of this thread there was some controversy over 'ski jumps' for LHAs. Here is another 2002 view on that score.

The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter – From a Harrier Skeptic 2002 Captain A.R. Behnke USMC

http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada520417.pdf (129Kb)

"...Harrier Argument
Skeptics of the AV-8 “Harrier” argue that STOVL is forever a flawed concept, and proof of this is readily available when you focus your attention on the Harrier....

...Carrier STOVL Operations / Ramps
For the Marine Corps and Navy to reap the full benefits of the STOVL JSF, it must be deployed on carriers. In addition, the Navy should modify both the Tarawa and Wasp class (LHA/LHD) ships to include a ramp (ski jump). These two issues are not received well by most naval officials. Their arguments are: STOVL aircraft on the carrier will hinder the deck cycle, and modifying the LHAs and LHDs with a ramp is too costly (in addition to losing one helicopter deck spot). However, it has been proven in many studies conducted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) that both would greatly assist the Navy in sortie rate and deck cycle impacts. Carrier On a carrier the operations of STOVL recovery and respot are greatly simplified. In addition, vertical landing pads on the port side of the carrier take up less area than the landing area required for normal carrier aircraft. This facilitates the simultaneous operations of launch, recovery, and respot. Therefore the flight deck is never fouled for any single operation, thus reducing the impact on sortie generation. For STOVL, the limiting factor of sortie generation then becomes aircraft servicing rate.16 Today’s CTOL carrier airwing has reached a near optimum level of mission performance. That is, no increase in airwing size or availability will result in increased maximum sorties attainable…VSTOL, on the other hand, has been shown to be limited by the servicing cycle only. Here significant increases in sortie generation capability and decreases in numbers of aircraft required to support that capability are attainable simply by increasing the number of servicing crews.17 It is evident from this excerpt and other studies by AAIA that the STOVL JSF on the carrier will not hinder operations. In fact, it will contribute to a better deck cycle and more sorties. LHA/LHD and Ramps The next step the Navy should take in support of the Marine Corps and the STOVL JSF is to modify its LHAs and LHDs with a bow ramp. By doing so, The Navy will increase the combat payload a STOVL JSF can bring to the battlefield, while improving deck cycle. With a ramp on the bow of the ship, the STOVL JSF can take off in only 400 feet, freeing the aft end of the ship for concurrent helicopter and MV-22 operations. The Harrier’s takeoff performance was dramatically enhanced; the heaviest Harrier-31,000 pounds-ever from the deck of any ship was launched from the [Spanish carrier, Principe de Asturias] with a deck run of only 400 feet. An aircraft whose weight precluded its launch from any LHA or LHD, even using the entire deck, used the ski jump to take off in approximately one-half that distance.18

Conclusion
The STOVL JSF is the correct aircraft..."

Graphic info is a bit out of date today 2011 but interesting for the 'fuel bringback requirement'.
Attachments
The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter – From a Harrier Skeptic KPPs 2002.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7558
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 02:44

I hate to be a party pooper ;), but that graphic is wrong.

The X-35 never had an internal bay so it could not have carried anything, let alone 5000lbs worth of weapons internally. Considering the lack of an internal bay and minimal avionics, it's no wonder that the reported X-35B performance is batter than the F-35B.

Here is a highres (3000*4000) photo of the underside of the X-35B and you will notice that there are no bays.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... /F-351.jpg
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20872
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 03:00

Fair enough, my interest was in the 'fuel bringback' details of the KPP only (and the other FORBIDDEN stuff about ksihumps on dem flat decks). :D
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7558
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 03:06

Instead of the X-35B, they may have been talking about the original pre-SWAT F-35B. The original did have a 5k internal weapons load so the rest may fit that assumption. I will check my old SAR reports for any supporting info.

--edit--
I looked at the Pre-SWAT SARs and it looks like that info in not from there. As an odd note, pre-SWAT F-35As were only looking to have 1k JDAMS and it was only the F-35C that was going to have a 2k JDAM internal capability.
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 27 Oct 2011, 03:13, edited 1 time in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20872
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 03:08

OK thanks. Would be good to clear up what the good captain was on about there.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

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

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 03:13

SpudmanWP wrote:I hate to be a party pooper ;), but that graphic is wrong.

The X-35 never had an internal bay so it could not have carried anything, let alone 5000lbs worth of weapons internally. Considering the lack of an internal bay and minimal avionics, it's no wonder that the reported X-35B performance is batter than the F-35B.

Here is a highres (3000*4000) photo of the underside of the X-35B and you will notice that there are no bays.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... /F-351.jpg


Didn't they also play around with some vertical takeoffs (al-la Harrier) back then as well? I've never even seen them try it with the F-35B. Also, 5K internal weapons? I thought the Bee was limited to 2x1K + 2BVR; seem that would put it way short of 5K.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7558
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 03:17

Correct, the X-35B did do a couple of short VTs just to prove engine capacity. Factoid: On the famous "Mission X" day (World's first STO --> Supersonic Dash --> VL), they tried to do a VT after the VL but an engine glitch stopped any further tries.

At one point on paper, the Pre-SWAT F-35B was to have 5k internal capability (eg 2x2k JDAM & 2xAMRAAM), but that got trimmed to 3k (2x1k JDAM & 2xAMRAAM) during SWAT.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20872
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 03:46

'1st503rdsgt ' said: "...I've never even seen them try it with the F-35B."

A recent report about testing revealed that indeed Vertical Takeoffs would be part of the F-35B test cycle. Similarly there was a STOVL flight without the wheels down. Not very practical in either case but they 'need to know'.

And thanks SWP for those details.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

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

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 04:36

Really drunk on Wild Turkey right now, just so ya'll know. I don't really know if the 1K limitation stemmed from from a weight or volume limitation. In any case, I would kill to see a video of the test of "no wheels down." That would be F^CKING AWESOME!!!
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20872
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 13:39

Unique Test Point For F-35B
7 July 2011: F-35 STOVL Mode Gear Up Photo by Andy Wolfe : 7 July 2011

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... em_id=1345

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_8714.JPG
Attachments
2011_12_mode4_wheelsup_11P00192_03_1267828237_8714.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

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

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 21:12

Oh, I thought you were referring to some kind of belly-flop test of an emergency procedure.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 516
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post27 Oct 2011, 22:00

spazsinbad wrote:Wayback near beginning of this thread there was some controversy over 'ski jumps' for LHAs. Here is another 2002 view on that score.

The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter – From a Harrier Skeptic 2002 Captain A.R. Behnke USMC

http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada520417.pdf (129Kb)

"...Harrier Argument
Skeptics of the AV-8 “Harrier” argue that STOVL is forever a flawed concept, and proof of this is readily available when you focus your attention on the Harrier....

...Carrier STOVL Operations / Ramps
For the Marine Corps and Navy to reap the full benefits of the STOVL JSF, it must be deployed on carriers. In addition, the Navy should modify both the Tarawa and Wasp class (LHA/LHD) ships to include a ramp (ski jump). These two issues are not received well by most naval officials. Their arguments are: STOVL aircraft on the carrier will hinder the deck cycle, and modifying the LHAs and LHDs with a ramp is too costly (in addition to losing one helicopter deck spot). However, it has been proven in many studies conducted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) that both would greatly assist the Navy in sortie rate and deck cycle impacts. Carrier On a carrier the operations of STOVL recovery and respot are greatly simplified. In addition, vertical landing pads on the port side of the carrier take up less area than the landing area required for normal carrier aircraft. This facilitates the simultaneous operations of launch, recovery, and respot. Therefore the flight deck is never fouled for any single operation, thus reducing the impact on sortie generation. For STOVL, the limiting factor of sortie generation then becomes aircraft servicing rate.16 Today’s CTOL carrier airwing has reached a near optimum level of mission performance. That is, no increase in airwing size or availability will result in increased maximum sorties attainable…VSTOL, on the other hand, has been shown to be limited by the servicing cycle only. Here significant increases in sortie generation capability and decreases in numbers of aircraft required to support that capability are attainable simply by increasing the number of servicing crews.17 It is evident from this excerpt and other studies by AAIA that the STOVL JSF on the carrier will not hinder operations. In fact, it will contribute to a better deck cycle and more sorties. LHA/LHD and Ramps The next step the Navy should take in support of the Marine Corps and the STOVL JSF is to modify its LHAs and LHDs with a bow ramp. By doing so, The Navy will increase the combat payload a STOVL JSF can bring to the battlefield, while improving deck cycle. With a ramp on the bow of the ship, the STOVL JSF can take off in only 400 feet, freeing the aft end of the ship for concurrent helicopter and MV-22 operations. The Harrier’s takeoff performance was dramatically enhanced; the heaviest Harrier-31,000 pounds-ever from the deck of any ship was launched from the [Spanish carrier, Principe de Asturias] with a deck run of only 400 feet. An aircraft whose weight precluded its launch from any LHA or LHD, even using the entire deck, used the ski jump to take off in approximately one-half that distance.18

Conclusion
The STOVL JSF is the correct aircraft..."

Graphic info is a bit out of date today 2011 but interesting for the 'fuel bringback requirement'.


Adding a ski-jump has a net positive effect to STOVL aircraft, but a negative effect effect to the primary mission of the ship which is transporting 1,700 Marines to the battlefield. Without a well deck, they are only capable of air assault and if you can't fit a platoon in the bomb bay.

That question then comes whether we are building the right ships and have the right squadron structure. Building Additional LHD-8 type ships as the LHA replacement and modified Juan Carlos-type ships instead of new LSDs to act as a combo LSD/CVE might be an overall better use of resources as might dropping NAVAIR strikefighter squadrons down to 8 aircraft and having more smaller squadrons.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20872
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Nov 2011, 00:39

IF '1st503rdsgt' likes videos and I like 'em here is a recent Oz ADF tour video (with pics also) of the Juan Carlos LHD soon to be in Oz twice in a few years time. Won't bore you with the text but links only:

ADF Juan Carlos I LHD Visit - 2011

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9D3OoLb ... r_embedded

PICS: http://www.flickr.com/photos/royal_aust ... 942306142/

TEXT: http://www.navy.gov.au/Gigantic_Leap_Forward

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6047/626 ... 8269_b.jpg

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/thumb/P ... 278-lo.JPG
Attachments
LHDdeckSkiJump.jpg
LHDjuanCarlosDeckLookingAftRANvisitOct2011.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4316
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Nov 2011, 06:33

spazsinbad wrote:IF '1st503rdsgt' likes videos and I like 'em here is a recent Oz ADF tour video (with pics also) of the Juan Carlos LHD soon to be in Oz twice in a few years time. Won't bore you with the text but links only:

ADF Juan Carlos I LHD Visit - 2011

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9D3OoLb ... r_embedded
PICS: http://www.flickr.com/photos/royal_aust ... 942306142/
TEXT: http://www.navy.gov.au/Gigantic_Leap_Forward

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6047/626 ... 8269_b.jpg

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/thumb/P ... 278-lo.JPG



Y

Just needs a deck full of F-35B's. :applause:
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: geforcerfx and 11 guests