Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

The US Marines argue that F-35Bs on Gators provide the US with 22 TACAIR capable ships for no other investment than has already been made or planned.

I guess it's only in the US that one enjoys the luxury of referring to a 40,000 ton ship (with 5th Gen TACAIR no less) as a 'JEEP' carrier.

quicksilver wrote:The US Marines argue that F-35Bs on Gators provide the US with 22 TACAIR capable ships for no other investment than has already been made or planned.

I guess it's only in the US that one enjoys the luxury of referring to a 40,000 ton ship (with 5th Gen TACAIR no less) as a 'JEEP' carrier.

A quick check reveals that there are about 8-10 STOVL carriers out there operated by nations on decent terms with the U.S. The F-35B would increase their capability by a whole order of magnitude, easing U.S. security obligations.

Of course, "jeep carriers" can't carry out near the volume of sustained operations as a proper CV, but putting 3-4 together might work over short periods and also present the enemy with a more difficult target in confined waters (like the Gulf).

As I said earlier though, there would have to be an AWACS version of the V-22 to make this concept viable (along with other things I haven't thought of I'm sure).

Perhaps this thread will become more relevant?

F-35 Shoots Down AWACS and JSTARS

Scrap AWACS, JSTARS; Plough Dough Into F-35, Wynne Says
By Colin Clark@DODBuzz; Monday, January 31st, 2011 12:52 pm
Posted in Air, Intelligence, International, Policy

"Former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne wants the Air Force to get rid of large surveillance and reconnasisance aircraft such as AWACS and JSTARS, which are vulnerable to attack because of their huge radar cross-sections, and take the money saved and shove it into the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Wynne made his arguments on the website Second Line of Defense, run by the international defense consultant Robbin Laird. I spoke with Wynne this morning. His essential argument is that large aircraft such as these, while possessing excellent capabilities, are so vulnerable in time of war that the enormous amounts of money spent paying the large crews needed to fly and maintain these systems would be better spent making F-35s into the flying intelligence and targeting networks that they are designed to be.

“The F-35s are far more survivable and therefore effective,” he said. Combine F-22s and F-35s with a capability like Gorgon Stare and you would have a difficult to beat combination of highly survivable intelligence gathering and offensive capabilities...."

spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps this thread will become more relevant?

F-35 Shoots Down AWACS and JSTARS

Scrap AWACS, JSTARS; Plough Dough Into F-35, Wynne Says
By Colin Clark@DODBuzz; Monday, January 31st, 2011 12:52 pm
Posted in Air, Intelligence, International, Policy

"Former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne wants the Air Force to get rid of large surveillance and reconnasisance aircraft such as AWACS and JSTARS, which are vulnerable to attack because of their huge radar cross-sections, and take the money saved and shove it into the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Wynne made his arguments on the website Second Line of Defense, run by the international defense consultant Robbin Laird. I spoke with Wynne this morning. His essential argument is that large aircraft such as these, while possessing excellent capabilities, are so vulnerable in time of war that the enormous amounts of money spent paying the large crews needed to fly and maintain these systems would be better spent making F-35s into the flying intelligence and targeting networks that they are designed to be.

“The F-35s are far more survivable and therefore effective,” he said. Combine F-22s and F-35s with a capability like Gorgon Stare and you would have a difficult to beat combination of highly survivable intelligence gathering and offensive capabilities...."

I'm not sure what to say. I guess I had it stuck in my head that all AWACS platforms had to be dedicated to the purpose from airframes able to handle several crew-members (preferably those built for transport). But with a good up-link system, I suppose its possible for fighters to just fly around with their radars on and let people on the ground handle all the data flow.

Of course, using fighters for AWACS patrol might lead to issues of endurance and maintenance cost, but I'm not sure how the V-22 would stack up to the F-35B in that area. I assume that the Navy continues to use the E-2 Hawkeye instead of a modified Superbug for that very reason though.

Still, I suppose that Wynne's idea might be the most cost/time effective route to having a usable "jeep carrier" option.

1st503rdsgt wrote:I actually like the idea of having an F-35B/jeep carrier option. 4 LHAs could be a tougher target than 1 CVN, but they'd have to develop a V-22 AWACS to make the concept viable.

Couple of things to keep in mind:

The purpose of USMC airpower is to support the troops on the ground. While organic fixed wing may fly off their ships initially, the objective is for them to go ashore as soon as sufficient ground is held, not continue shipboard ops.


Second, 4 LHAs are not a tougher target than one CVN, they're easier. Plus, they're a lot more expensive.

A long and now outdated article with some 'for' and 'against' STOVL includes these paras: (there are many other USMC authored articles online that would say similar things)

Challenging the STOVL Myth by Dr. Ezio Bonsignore, Editor-in-Chief of MILITARY TECHNOLOGY (MILTECH) 10Sep2009

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/397 ... 291936d882

"...It is highly instructive at this point to take a look at the rationale for the F-35B as formulated by the US Marine Corps, i.e. the world’s leading expeditionary force.

The USMC requirement for the JSF programme mandated a multi-mission aircraft capable of operations from austere shore facilities as well as amphibious ships and other sea bases. Such basing flexibility is fundamental to the expeditionary nature of the Marine Corps, and indeed is the only reason why the Marines want a STOVL aircraft. Basing flexibility not only provides the foundation for forward basing which improves responsiveness, but also increases the number of airfields from which to conduct operations, thus allowing for more assets to be brought into theatre.

This sounds very close to the STOVL rationale as being expressed by the RAF and AMI. But the USMC’s doctrine, “Operational Manoeuvre From The Sea” (OMFTS) seeks to avoid establishing a traditional logistics base ashore from which to conduct follow-on operations. Rather, manoeuvre forces will move directly from the ships to their objectives with a minimal footprint. Accordingly, OMFTS calls for the majority of firepower, to include aviation, to remain afloat and only go ashore if necessary. This means that the Corps’ F-35Bs, like the current AV-8Bs will operate primarily from naval ships - where they can be more easily provided with fuel, ordnance, and maintenance without becoming a logistical burden - versus land bases. While forward-basing the aircraft ashore as early as feasible would arguably look like the best way to improve operational effectiveness, the USMC opine that sustainability considerations rather dictate for them to remain onboard.

This approach is aptly underlined by the evolution of the US Navy amphibious assault ships, from the LHA to the LHD, LHD-8 and now LHA-6 designs with progressively expanded aviation capabilities. More specifically, the new AMERICA class, with no deck well but able to operate up to 24 F-35Bs are dedicated STOVL carriers but in name, even though due to deference toward the “real” carriers they will not be fitted with a sky[sic]-jump...."

Flexible future - The F-35B will give the Marine Corps unprecedented basing options
BY MAJ. TYLER BARDO AND MAJ. CHAD VAUGHN - Oct 2010

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/10/4765181/

"...From a sea-basing perspective, the dispersion of carrier-based STOVL aircraft creates a dilemma for the enemy while providing additional combat capability to the supported commander. During Desert Storm, 20 Harriers aboard the amphibious assault ship Nassau operated from a 750-foot flight deck, which resulted in a 15-minute transit time and 40 minutes of on-station time with no in-flight refueling. As the war progressed north, AV-8Bs would launch from ships in the Persian Gulf, fly a mission and then proceed to an FOB in Kuwait to rearm and refuel. After flying a second mission, these aircraft would return to the ship. These combined sea and shore operations doubled the sortie-generation rate for ship-based aircraft, halved shipboard workload and ordnance expenditure, and minimized shipboard resupply concerns. Also, because the aircraft returned to the ship, the force protection requirement ashore was significantly reduced.

During recent operations in Iraq, coalition airfields were at maximum capacity and the Navy was unable to source any more big-deck carriers into the Persian Gulf. Operating Harriers from amphibious assault ships put an additional 60 tactical aircraft at the disposal of the combatant commander...."

Another 'take' on the 'AWACS' issue:

The F-35B and USMC Con-Ops:”You are truly a fully networked, battle space integrator”

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=7456

"The F-35B will replace multiple assets for the USMC in their core operations. It has been described by the current Commandant of the USMC as the centerpiece of the future MAGTF (Marine Air-Ground Task Force). USMC Aviator Bob Fitzgerald (Ret) explains why in an interview with SLD on March 18, 2010.

Bob Fitzgerald: I retired about two years ago. And I was the director of aviation plans and policy inside HQMC Aviation and so was responsible for crafting the Marine Corps aviation vision, which is parallel and complementary to, but is not the same as, the marine aviation transition strategy. The strategy, and its individual elements, which include the F35B, describe the capability sets and posture to execute DCAir’s long range vision.

I have been a Harrier pilot for about 25 years with almost 3,000 hours in a Harrier. I also had an opportunity to fly the Prowler as the CO of MAG-14. So I have unique experience with the transition from AV-8A to AV-8B, being involved in its growth from Day Attack to Night Attack to the AV-8B II+ radar jet and the introduction of the lighting pod and the integrated capabilities of the Harrier, but also with the electromagnetic spectrum exploitation of the Prowler.

And in fact, that’s what we want to do with the F35B. The JSF is really a fusion of the EA6’s extraordinary EM capabilities, and the Hornet’s long-range afterburning, supersonic, fourth generation capabilities, with the ground attack, STOVL capabilities of the Harrier, all combined into a single cockpit.

SLD: So, from your point of view, the experiences you’ve had with the transition within the Harrier force and transition within the Prowler force are important operational experiences that you’ve actually taken forward to the new aircraft.

Bob Fitzgerald: Absolutely right. And as we pace the threat and as we understand the evolving national security environment and the engagement responsibilities our Corps has in the littorals, the F35 is going to embody all of the unique characteristics and capabilities of our integrated TacAir force into a single platform.

SLD: So the F35-B is not simply replacing the Harrier as many claim. It’s a much broader replacement effort. Can you speak to that?

Bob Fitzgerald: It’s certainly understandable why they would think that [the F35-B is simply replacing the Harrier], because the focus is again, on a fifth generation afterburning capable aircraft that can take off and land vertically. And so the natural tendency is to describe it in its STOVL attributes. But it’s much more than that.

In fact, this is an EC-130, F-18 and Harrier, all rolled up into one. So what you have is a supersonic, 5th generation, EC130-Prowler-Hornet-Harrier, all rolled up into one. It’s the computing processing power; it’s the sensors, it’s the integrated weapons suites and communication systems, combined with the stealth technology that enables persistent presence on the battlefield. To do all the things we do across all six functions in marine aviation, and all 6 warfighting functions of the MAGTF. And it brings the expeditionary flexibility of STOVL operations, which doubles the number of airfields and decks that we can take off, land, and operate from.

SLD: Can you speak to the technology that’s on the aircraft? For example, could you talk a little bit about from an operational point of view with regard to what the impact of the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) brings to the operation?

Bob Fitzgerald: The DAS is an incredible leap in technology for us. And while it was initially designed for protection of the aircraft—and it will certainly do that—what this does though is we’re able to extend that capability across the battlespace, truly integrating the MAGTF in the Single Battle.

What that’ll do is allow not only identifying threats to the aircraft, but we’ll be able to see threats to other elements of the MAGTF. The system will allow us to quickly identify where the threats are, pinpoint those locations, and not only highlight Point of Origin and Expected Point of Impact to the MAGTF, but we’ll have unprecedented opportunity to counter that strike from assets across the MAGTF. So F-35 can self-engage, or we can transfer that target off to another aircraft, or we can assign that target to another firing element inside the MAGTF, with incredible speed.

So, by fusing that kind of capability across the MAGTF in the single battle—the rear, the deep, and the close fight—we have an opportunity to connect all the elements of the MAGTF, not only for force protection, but for precision engagement, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. So the battlefield becomes very dangerous for the bad guys immediately, while giving great confidence to our friends and allies.

SLD: Could you talk to the machine-to-machine aspect of the DAS and associated systems? What that really means to future procurement, future operations?

Bob Fitzgerald: That machine-to-machine piece is what’s going to provide the decisive engagement capability we’re looking for: bringing strategic agility, operational flexibility and tactical supremacy to the single battle. The speed of intel-sharing, threat-data processing, and decision making will allow us complete the kill-chain, the target-to-weapon system pairing very rapidly, very accurately. The F-35 is not a traditional intel- consumer or intel-dependent weapon but an intel-generator and battlespace manager for the MAGTF.

We’re transitioning from platform-centric operations to network centric operations, and the F-35B is the key node in our MAGTF system of systems which brings this integrated capacity. Not only can we Right-Configure our force protection posture real-time, across the MAGTF, but we can engage threats either as they’re presenting themselves, or even before in some cases, to engage them with the appropriate weapons system across the MAGTF. And we’ll do it at unprecedented speeds, because again, it will be machine-to-machine interaction, with all Blue Forces linked on the network, as opposed to identifying and prosecuting a threat in the traditional way—the way we’ve done it for the last 30 years.

This response time is very critical when considering the future battlefield, with sophisticated hybrid threats that are very dangerous, that are very elusive, that can blend in with noncombatants and hide themselves amongst the civilian population, where collateral damage is extremely important. This is where speed, precision, proportionality are critical to strategic success—where protecting the population is equally, if not more important than engaging the threat, just as we’re seeing in Afghanistan.

This machine-to-machine interface with F35 is going to allow us to outpace the threat and engage the adversary with precision, with the right weapon, with very specific yield, from very specific quadrants. And at the same time limiting, if not eliminating collateral damage and civilian casualties, which is extremely important when we’re trying to separate the threat from the population and bring stability and security to the region.

SLD: Can you speak to the difference that an integrated capability brings to your ability to rethink operational capabilities as opposed to sequential upgrades which are not integrated inherently into the legacy tactical aircraft.

Bob Fitzgerald: Absolutely. This is going to fundamentally change the way we conduct operations across all phases of combat operations. Modernizing legacy platforms, while important, pretty much limits you to just accelerating traditional tactics, because you’re limited by your technology. With these next generation capabilities and the machine-to-machine interface which exponentially increases our tempo, and our ability to influence actions across the electromagnetic spectrum, we can influence the battle space in ways we’ve never been able to before.

SLD: Or rather, than relying on specialized aircraft that may or may not be there.

Bob Fitzgerald: Exactly right. Expeditionary means being able to execute and sustain with organic capabilities. While we certainly expect to integrate with out of theatre, national, and joint/coalition partners and platforms, we don’t want to put operations or our Marines at risk by being limited due to other priority tasking or bandwidth limitations or physical locations of critical assets.

So if the bad guys are operating anywhere in the battle space, not only will we know it, not only can we influence that, but we expect to have unfettered access on our own, which gives us unprecedented non-kinetic capabilities, which we’ve only been starting to explore with. But we can finally fuse the non-kinetics with the kinetics in a time and place of our choosing in ways that outpace anything that we expect the threat the put on the battle space.

SLD: And certainly, the fact that you’re subsuming multiple platforms will have a significant impact on the logistics problems, the fact that you’re now supporting one aircraft, or in the case of bringing the Osprey plus the F-35 gives you a much smaller footprint to have a much greater capability.

Bob Fitzgerald: It certainly does. And that’s part of the key performance parameters for the F35—the ability to generate sorties. You hit the nail on the head when you talk about our logistics sustainability, and our ability to conduct and sustain and surge operations for extended periods because of the smaller footprint over legacy platforms. And this will be coupled with increased system reliability. We’re expecting to see component “Time Between Failures” to be reduced by 30% and “Combat Turn Around Times” to increase by another 30%, all of which means more combat sorties generated.

But we’re also going to have unprecedented connectivity with joint and coalition forces.

Nine countries and thirteen services will be operating the same basic airframe. So within that, we will have the unprecedented ability to train, operate, integrate and reduce the footprint across the joint and coalition force.

SLD: Shaping joint and coalition mental furniture is a key part of 21st century operations.

Bob Fitzgerald: You’re exactly right. We’ve always had exchange officers. And they’ve always been critical to not only sharing ideas and tactics, but also building long-term partnerships. But in this case, we’re taking it to a next logical step in that we’re flying the same aircraft. So, not only do we share tactics across tactical airframes, but now we’re flying the same airframe. So that when we form the coalition in response to crises, we expect our combat power, our response force to be able to respond even more quickly, and even more appropriately, because we will have procedures, processes, tactics, systems, logistic support processes that all fall in on each other and accelerate our ability to respond to threats.

Ideally, this will facilitate our ability to respond to crises before they become conflicts, and then to shape the battle space, again, because even with a small initial shaping force such as a MEU, you bring a tremendous range and depth of combat power from an integrated MAGTF with F35B’s that begin to stress and shape the battle space with next generation technologies.

SLD: One of the challenges facing the defense and political community is the difficulty grasping the impact of new technologies of rethinking con-ops. And the Osprey’s a good example of new systems being ahead of con-ops.

I think we’re having the same problem with F-35, the DAS will generate way too much information to handle for our current needs. Now, does that mean that we then go backwards and buy something that fits our current mental furniture? Or do we take advantage of what the new technology can provide us? So are we moving forward or going backwards. You can’t stay in place in this business.

Bob Fitzgerald: That’s exactly right. We’re tackling that issue across the force. The F-35B will be no different, in that the new capabilities (such as the DAS) will generate much more information than our current system is equipped to manage and exploit. The answer does not lie in muting the capabilities so that they conform to legacy systems and our current understanding and mental picture of integrated operations. We have bright young Marines crafting next generation concepts, intent on taking advantage of what the new technology can provide us. You can’t stay in place in this business. You’re either moving forward or going backwards, and I’m pleased to say that I’ve served in an organization with a history of innovation and fresh ideas.

And so we’re generating the support systems: the computers, the meta tagging, the data recalling, the ability to manipulate and share, and the machine-to-machine interface that is essential to exploiting all of this combat power, and all of this information sharing. You’re absolutely right; we cannot overlay a manual process over this high technology information exchange system. This is an unprecedented computerized capability, and we’ll need the support infrastructure that exploits that. And that’s what we’re in the process of doing.

SLD: And I think the built-in integrative capability of the aircraft coupled with shaping new con-ops can provide significant ability to shape a smaller footprint for the deployed force.

Bob Fitzgerald: You’re absolutely right. We’ve never had the kind of operational flexibility in such a small footprint before. So, unlike the past, with its traditional overlay of force, and linear growth in capabilities, we now have exponential capabilities. So a much smaller force now brings exponential growth in combat power through integration: data sharing, technology sharing, speed of decision-making, and precision weapons. It is not commonly realized that the F-35B has 400 percent of the EA-6 Prowler’s processing capability.

So you can deploy large deck carrier capability to a significant extent from an amphibious L-Class ship. And that enhances our ability to shape and influence the battlespace across the littorals, across the Naval battle force, and deep inland. And this kind of combat power isn’t resident in only discreet areas, but rather its spread across the areas.

And now you’re just adding this enhanced capacity to the force, for the CoCom, and its resident from the smallest force up to the largest force. So you’re not signaling, as you alluded to, your strategic intent with force size, rather you have the full spectrum at your disposal at any force size. So you can start to shape and influence operations at the lowest level across the spectrum, as well as the highest level.

SLD: Let me ask you a final question. You’ve had a lot of Harrier experience and because folks often insist on seeing the F-35B as a Harrier replacement, why don’t you just tell folks what the difference between flying a Harrier and 35-B will be.

Bob Fitzgerald: Mostly in cockpit management. The Harrier is a combat-proven, but first generation STOVL platform; a manual, mechanical aircraft that requires a great deal of hands-on flying from the pilot. As the aircraft matured we added more sophisticated capabilities, but it’s a third generation aircraft, with limited growth potential.

The F35, because of the enhanced technologies and unprecedented reliability of the systems in the aircraft, you are less of a mechanical pilot and now more of a battlefield operating systems manager. And you can do it at 8.5 Gs, at supersonic speeds, through persistent presence on a sophisticated battlefield.

You are truly a fully networked, battle space integrator. You are able to develop the combat situation and push real-time SA (imagery, data, threat communications) directly from your aircraft into the network, and [you] can directly engage threats or direct engagement from others with a full range of non-kinetic to kinetic options.
———-
***Posted on April 28th, 2010."

33d Fighter WingF-35 Brief Maj Michael “Jeb” Ebner, 58 FS, USAF

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010targets/Ebner.pdf (2.3Mb) dated 26 Oct 2010

Info about training facilities and such like, the first graphic would be an old pic [only my guesswork being in the land of Oz] of the LHA Deck at Duke Field, [looks like the YUMA iteration probably - see next page] a new[?] one is under construction I gather (see earlier page - more info to follow):

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-360.html

Simulated ship landing site at Bogue Field near Cherry Point with the outline of an LHA

spazsinbad wrote:Simulated ship landing site at Bogue Field near Cherry Point with the outline of an LHA

It puzzles me why they chose Beaufort for the FRS center. Cherry Point has all the training facilites.

spazsinbad wrote:33d Fighter WingF-35 Brief Maj Michael “Jeb” Ebner, 58 FS, USAF

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010targets/Ebner.pdf (2.3Mb) dated 26 Oct 2010

Info about training facilities and such like, the first graphic would be an old pic of the LHA Deck at Duke Field, a new one is under construction I gather (see earlier page - more info to follow).

There isn't an old LHA deck at Duke field. Though it is used by Navy aircraft from Pensacola and Whiting field hence being one of the few air force facilities with carrier field landing markings.

bjr1028 said: "There isn't an old LHA deck at Duke field." My bad. I should have put GUESS in the above thread entry (since corrected). On an earlier page is a graphic from a similar PDF showing the 'new' location of the LHA deck at Duke Field. Photo replicated here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-360.html

http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/eg ... 11_356.gif

Duke Field as seen on 22 Feb 2007 via Google Earth & via SLD info - quote by 'Turbo' Colonel Arthur Tomassetti

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-360.html

"We look to what’s going on, on the airfield. You’ll notice, probably much different from when you were here last time, there’s a lot of clearing of trees and everything, going on. Basically, what we’re trying to accommodate now is this parking apron that goes in front of the Navy and Marine Corp hangar, this addition to the taxiways, the large aircraft loading area and last chance checks area. Across the taxiway, there are 2 hover pads so that the STOVL airplanes can perform their vertical landings, here at Eglin main.

All that construction is under way up at Duke field, which is one of the outlying fields that we will use; basically, we’re setting up an LHA dummy deck, which is similar to what sits at the field near Cherry Point and the field near Yuma, Arizona, that currently, the Harrier pilots use to practice shipboard operations, before actually going out to a ship.

So basically, you take the top of a LHA/LHD, you lay it on the ground, and people can operate their airplanes, on approach to landing, and on takeoff. There is a tower set up, so the landing signal officer has the right perspective to view the airplanes, to control the approaches and takeoffs; and it gives the airplane the right perspective of things to look for, when operating in a shipboard environment. So that’s being put into place up at Duke Field. It should be up and operational by mid-summer of next year [2011]."

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=12819

F-35 STOVL Simulated Carrier Practice Landing Deck, Duke Field, FL

http://www.l3stratis.com/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=54

"As part of the new Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) Flight Training mission located at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, the U.S. Marine Corps pilots will be trained to fly the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the newest fighter jet platform. The jet will be flown from a special airfield that will be a complete working simulation of an LHD/LHA-7 Assault ship. The simulated landing deck must be able withstand the extremely high temperatures generated by the vertical thrust of the aircrafts’ engines.

L-3 STRATIS Cost Engineering Services was tasked by the design team of Baskerville Donovan under their design contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, to develop independent government cost estimates for this unique project. L-3 worked closely with the design engineers to develop project construction cost estimates for all phases of the design--even before a design solution for the high temperature concrete was determined for the $23 million project. The project was successfully awarded by the Mobile District in May, 2010 to R.C. Construction Co., Inc., Greenwood, MS"