Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 03:41

Is There a Ski-Jump in the U.S. Navy’s Future?

Interesting ideas there ELP. Perhaps you overlooked that the RAN may have the potential (with two new LHDs in future) to carry JSF-Bs (if only crossdecking RN or USMC JSF-Bs). The RAN LHDs have ski-jumps. It has been made clear already that the RAN has no intention of using this ski jump (yeah right) however it would also be a useful spare deck for any Harrier operations from RN or USMC, until their respective JSF-Bs come online.

The Osprey apparently has deck heating issues (which I don't think should ever be linked to any JSF-B issues) which may be problematic. Designing/building a new small STOVL dedicated ski jump carrier would allow any potential problems operating the Osprey to be overcome. Suitably equipped helos (similar perhaps to RN helos) may be a stop gap solution for EW and other related duties.

Of course already it is assumed that any new small ski jump carrier for the US would be designed specifically for the JSF-B.
Offline

solomon

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2009, 21:05

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 03:53

The new LHA is already designed more for air operations rather than the traditional Gator Navy role. It has no well deck and is really optimized as a sea control ship rather than a workhorse for the Navy/Marine team. I disagree with the idea totally. Already there are calls to cut back on the number of amphibious ships in the Navy, ideas like this would lead to an enlarged Marine Corps with no transport. I also don't see how a ski jump would help with V-22 operations.
Offline

solomon

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2009, 21:05
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 04:01

Lack of a ski jump on USMC 'harrier carriers' has always been a bone of contention between USMC & USN (where the USN don't want the ski jump because [one idea] it will take a vital helo space away from the deck). What ELP has suggested is a single dedicated new specifically designed for the JSF-B small carrier. The V-22 for EW may or may not work on such a specific ship. Hence the helo as fall back. However if the V-22 is thought to work on such a specific JSF-B with ski jump small carrier then there is no problem. No one has suggested that a ski jump is useful for the V-22. [I'll go and read the above archive URL now.]

Having read the page at the URL about USS America (abuilding) we can see that this is an all purpose (JSF-B & Helo) carrier - not one small carrier dedicated to operation of the JSF-B as so brightly suggested by ELP.
Last edited by spazsinbad on 06 Jul 2009, 04:05, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

solomon

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2009, 21:05

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 04:03

Since when has it been a "bone of contention"? Source, cause I never heard that...anywhere.
Offline

solomon

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2009, 21:05

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 04:05

And it was never the Navy complaining about deck space for helicopters...The USMC has always deployed more helicopters than their Royal Marine/Navy counterparts. If you look at the aircraft carriage for the HMS Ocean it is usually half that of a Tarawa class ship. That's doctrine not a design flaw.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 04:08

In this article 'ski jumps' are referred to as 'ramps' (must be USMC speak): The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter in Support of the 21st Century Marine Corps

"The most significant contribution that the Navy could make to STOVL air and helicopter-borne power projection is adding a ramp (ski jump) to all Tarawa- and Wasp-class amphibious ships."[76] It is ironic that although the US is the largest operator of Harriers and amphibious ships in the world, it is also the only navy in the world that does not have ramps on its Harrier platforms. The UK, India, Italy, and Spain all have ramp-equipped ships that optimize the combat power of the Harrier. The British discovered that if the ship's deck were curved upward the last 100 feet or so, the aircraft would exit the bow with a ballistic trajectory (speed builds up during the ballistic portion of the flight until the aircraft attains normal wing-borne flight). The US Navy studied ship designs featuring ski jumps with exit angles of up to 12 degrees but rejected the concept as too costly in design weight of the ship and perceived loss of helicopter spots.[77] The ramp for Harrier operations significantly improves aircraft performance, payload, safety, and deck utilization. A ramp not only dramatically improves a STOVL aircraft's takeoff performance, it facilitates concurrent fixed-and rotary-wing operations afloat.[78]"

Discussion might be useful to this forum?: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy- ... ed-8977-3/
Last edited by spazsinbad on 06 Jul 2009, 04:17, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

solomon

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2009, 21:05

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 04:16

Thats a position paper written by a Marine Officer. Probably for one of the war colleges (being a Major that's about the time they get sent to one...CSC is in the title so I would assume its for the Command Staff College). But the point remains. Its an idea who's time has not come. Precious resources have already been devoted to this aviation only LHA, we don't need to compound the mistake by taking away spaces from troop carrying helicopters. The F-35B and AH-1Z/UH-1Y are there to support guys on the ground. If you start putting ramps, ski jumps, whatever you want to call them on the ships then you're losing valuable space for the transports to get the Marines to there objective. Plus if you keep building these type ships then you're stuck with only heliborne operations. No LCACs, no AAVs, and no EFVs....just air.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 04:21

solomon, that is one tough ask to justify my comment about 'controversy' and how the USN has stopped USMC getting their 'ramps'. However I think that particular article gives the flavour of that, despite it being written by a Major (ten years ago now). The USMC has been agitating for 'ramps' ever since they started to cross deck on RN carriers with ramps. It may be news to you however.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

solomon

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2009, 21:05

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 04:31

I was in the Marine Corps three years ago so if it was being proposed I would have heard about it. That kind of debate wouldn't be classified top secret.
Offline

geogen

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2940
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 06:01

Good thread, spaz. And definitely not an anti-F-35 agenda oriented article by ELP, nor his first of this type.

It's a valid question raised to ponder optimal, (near-term even) power sources for future surface hulls of destroyer and larger classes. Electrical-generating power is definitely (or should be) a key consideration too, of all future builds perhaps, allowing for various future systems integration.

But perhaps at least a couple such 'America' class LHAs could be modified indeed under a more specialized 'Sea Control' mission role enabling more range and payload for F-35B. Those would augment the existing multi-role LHA/LHD - ostensibly a ship classification requirement not as critical in the future anyways, according to SecDef. Not to go extensively off topic, but a further capability for future LHA class could be command for an aero-stat ship equipped for fleet anti-cruise missile Early Warning/data-link control (e.g., coordinated for SA-6 employment).

But regarding the contemplated USN 'ski-jump' issue, perhaps a 'bolt-on' modular/removable ski-jump could be configured for any standard 110' Beamed, 820'+ lengthed LHA/LHD (for specialized mission requirements)?
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 08:48

solomon, I don't understand your reference to 'top secret' and why you yourself have not heard about it (the ramp). The May-June 1990 edition of "Naval Aviation News" has a two page article written by Major Art Nalls (now flying an ex-RN Harrier as a civilian warbird) about his advocating the 'ramp'. Testing started Dec. 1988 on 'Principe De Asturias' with a Marine detachment from NATC.

PDF here: http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... 0/mj90.pdf
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

shep1978

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 10:26

spazsinbad wrote:In this article 'ski jumps' are referred to as 'ramps' (must be USMC speak


To be fair they are not 'ski ramps' at all as no-one has ever skied off of one, they are ramps that resemble ski ramps but that is not what they are.
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3146
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 12:18

spazsinbad wrote:Is There a Ski-Jump in the U.S. Navy’s Future?

Interesting ideas there ELP. Perhaps you overlooked that the RAN may have the potential (with two new LHDs in future) to carry JSF-Bs (if only crossdecking RN or USMC JSF-Bs). The RAN LHDs have ski-jumps. It has been made clear already that the RAN has no intention of using this ski jump (yeah right) however it would also be a useful spare deck for any Harrier operations from RN or USMC, until their respective JSF-Bs come online.

The Osprey apparently has deck heating issues (which I don't think should ever be linked to any JSF-B issues) which may be problematic. Designing/building a new small STOVL dedicated ski jump carrier would allow any potential problems operating the Osprey to be overcome. Suitably equipped helos (similar perhaps to RN helos) may be a stop gap solution for EW and other related duties.

Of course already it is assumed that any new small ski jump carrier for the US would be designed specifically for the JSF-B.



:::: yawn :::: The RAN? Yeah... well so what? :lol: - The thrust of the article was the procurement path the U.S. Navy is going down with less and less money via the economic meltdown and gold plated useless ships like LCS and Zumwalt off to the side pretending they have relevance.

Also I wasn't advocating V-22. I have never been much of a fan. Been-there-done-that-with class A mishaps and the associated smell. Yet there is a study to make a AEW V-22 (fact)... like it or not.... and again... so what?
- ELP -
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Jul 2009, 13:41

ELP, thanks for your contempt for the RAN - noted.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Next

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rotosequence and 1 guest