F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

It appears theNavy is serious about the Afloat Forward StagingBase concept. It would apparently be based on the MLP and the USMC would be a primary customer. That means the decks would very likely be rated for V-22s and F-35Bs.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... g-U-S-Navy

New Floating Base Ships Coming for U.S. Navy

Decades after the idea was broached for a floating, mobile base to support operating forces in the Persian Gulf, the concept has suddenly shifted into high gear, and a sense of urgency is driving both new U.S. ship construction and conversion of an existing vessel.

A new Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) is mentioned almost in passing within the Pentagon budget briefing document made public Jan. 26...

... U.S. Navy officials would not publicly confirm the new construction, but sources confirmed the service plans to modify the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) design to take on the AFSB role.

Three MLPs have been funded for construction at the General Dynamics National Steel and Shipbuilding (NASSCO) shipyard in San Diego. The ships are large, 765-foot-long vessels able to float off small landing craft, tugs or barges.

For the AFSB role, a fourth MLP hull would be modified with several decks, including a hangar, topped by a large flight deck able to operate the heavy H-53s in the airborne mine countermeasures role.

But the AFSB will also be able to carry Marines, support patrol and special operations craft, and fuel and arm other helicopters.

The ship is expected to be requested in 2014.

Sources also said the Navy might be considering modifying the third MLP to the AFSB mission. Construction of that ship, funded in the 2012 defense bill, is being negotiated between NASSCO and the Navy.

This is a cartoon-ish representation of how I thought exterior launching could work.

popcorn wrote:It appears theNavy is serious about the Afloat Forward StagingBase concept. It would apparently be based on the MLP and the USMC would be a primary customer. That means the decks would very likely be rated for V-22s and F-35Bs.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... g-U-S-Navy

This idea (as it's been applied to the USS Ponce) would seem to be rather limited (too small for Bee ops) and geared toward missions like mine clearance, patrol, and support of special operations. I'm not so sure it would be practical to scale it to a larger platform.

Then again, that applies to the USN; and this thread is about naval deployment of the F-35B by non-US forces who might find a large floating base more suitable for their means. However, it does not seem justifiable to purchase such expensive aircraft for a platform of such limited purpose.

madrat wrote:This is a cartoon-ish representation of how I thought exterior launching could work.

I'm no naval architect, but that design seems overly complicated. I'm also worried about how one would keep water out of the S-curve.

Drain water with a big drain at the bottom of the curve? The 'F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump???' thread (page 2) has another 'madrat' s-curve arrangement on rails:

CV with monorail 01 June 2010: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ity#176328

spazsinbad wrote:Drain water with a big drain at the bottom of the curve? The 'F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump???' thread (page 2) has another 'madrat' s-curve arrangement on rails:

CV with monorail 01 June 2010: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ity#176328

There's very little freeboard (or whatever the pukes would call it) between the bottom of that S-curve and the waterline. A "big drain" would probably make the problem worse. Besides, even the end of the ramp isn't very high; whatever device is used would have to ship a lot of water very quickly. Still, if you think it would work, I'll shut-up; you know more about these things than I ever will.

Water collected in bilges is PUMPed overboard with a Bilge Pump. This forum needs such a device sometimes.

Somewhere on the VLT is an article about 'gravity assisted ski-jump' testing but I cannot find it for the moment. Initially the ramp goes down - then up - it was proved to be useful on land: onboard? don't know. Simple is good - I put a lot of 'innovations' in the SKYHOOK category.

I imagine the sea state that puts water into the launch chute also disrupts operations. Besides, if the opening ever scooped water they make one-way drains and bilge pumps. The navies of the world figured a lot of this stuff out decades ago.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

popcorn wrote:It appears theNavy is serious about the Afloat Forward StagingBase concept. It would apparently be based on the MLP and the USMC would be a primary customer. That means the decks would very likely be rated for V-22s and F-35Bs.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... g-U-S-Navy

K
This idea (as it's been applied to the USS Ponce) would seem to be rather limited (too small for Bee ops) and geared toward missions like mine clearance, patrol, and support of special operations. I'm not so sure it would be practical to scale it to a larger platform.

Then again, that applies to the USN; and this thread is about naval deployment of the F-35B by non-US forces who might find a large floating base more suitable for their means. However, it does not seem justifiable to purchase such expensive aircraft for a platform of such limited purpose.

As a logistics hub, more practical as an Osprey and helo nest.., a lilypad for F-35B.

"For the AFSB role, a fourth MLP hull would be modified with several decks, including a hangar, topped by a large flight deck able to operate the heavy H-53s in the airborne mine countermeasures role."

Sounds like the kind of vessel you might build if you were worried about someone (Iran, just as a guess?) trying to close down the Persian Gulf. And they want it in a hurry too, by 2014. Someone is doing a little crystal ball gazing, I suspect. Or war-gaming, at least.

stereospace wrote:"For the AFSB role, a fourth MLP hull would be modified with several decks, including a hangar, topped by a large flight deck able to operate the heavy H-53s in the airborne mine countermeasures role."

Sounds like the kind of vessel you might build if you were worried about someone (Iran, just as a guess?) trying to close down the Persian Gulf. And they want it in a hurry too, by 2014. Someone is doing a little crystal ball gazing, I suspect. Or war-gaming, at least.

An innovative and multi-purpose piece to the whole sea base concept. The 3 initial MLPs cost $1.3B in total or around $450M per unit..,the 4th ship with the AFSB conversions would up this cost somewhat but should provide a lot of bang for the buck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... ory_1.html
Navy Special Forces units: How many are needed?Text Size Print E-mail Reprints

In the shipbuilding area, the Navy is proposing to build a fourth Mobile Landing Platform, a ship that serves as a base for amphibious operations and which, if needed, can handle transfers from large warships to small landing craft. Three have been ordered in a program that costs about $1.3 billion. The first is not expected until 2015.

One, however, is to be configured to handle a bigger role as an Afloat Forward Staging Base. According to one report, it would be reconfigured to include a hangar and flight deck that would allow heavy helicopters to be flown in a mine-countermeasures role...

Here is the ' ' PDF: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a126456.pdf

Short Takeoff Performance Using a Gravity Assist Ski Jump by Roger J. Furey 1983 March

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a126456.pdf (1Mb)

"ABSTRACT:
A modified or gravity assist ski jump is developed, through an application of the calculus of variations, to provide for the shortest takeoff roll for a thrust vector control type vertical or short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) aircraft that will maintain a better-than-minimum required rate of climb. As a means of comparison between the resulting modified and a conventional ski jump, the equations of motion are programed to model the takeoff performancer using a ski jump. The results of this model are found to compare well with Naval Air Test Center ski jump test results of the AV-8A aircraft. A comparison of the standard and gravity assist ski jump shows a reduction of 30 percent in required ground roll and 20 percent in distance to a 50-ft altitude, while maintaining a better-than-minimum required rate of climb, with the modified ramp. A simple modified ramp, using a pair of standard multiple girder bridging (MGB) ramps, is shown to provide similar improvements in takeoff performance."...
&
"...While the performance benefits to be gained through the use of the ski jump have been demonstrated, it seems reasonable that, as in the case of an actual skier, an assist from gravity in the initial downhill run prior to the ramp entry would provide for greater initial acceleration and thereby further performance gains. The current report is an effort to determine what the ski jump shape should be in order to provide for a maximum payload with the shortest takeoff roll. The payoff would include smaller ships platforms from which such aircraft could operate...."

Conclusions
"A modified or gravity assist ski jump ramp shape was generated through an application of the calculus of variations. The modified shape employs an initial down run which takes advantage of gravity to maximise acceleration and energy at the beginning of the takeoff....

...The purpose of this report has been to present results which are necessarily preliminary in the sense that a limited number of variables have been evaluated. Although such an arrangement of ski jump ramps may be physically challenging, the challenge is no greater than the single ski jump ramp first presented...."

European Carrier Group Interoperability Initiative Exercise "Levante 12"

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/var/dicod/st ... avallo.jpg

spazsinbad wrote:European Carrier Group Interoperability Initiative Exercise "Levante 12"

Nice pic.

Please don't be mad at me Spaz. I'm just re-posting your new article links on the Canberra-class over here in case I need to find them later (a lot of good stuff gets buried over on your long thread).

http://www.defence.gov.au/defencenews/s ... t/1017.htm
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012 ... ck-hull-2/
http://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/u ... _en_v2.pdf
http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/upl ... t-2010.pdf