F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7693
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post14 Jun 2021, 03:52

Regardless, of the designed selected. (DMSE or HHI) One thing is for sure..........they will need to order more F-35B's! :wink:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3371
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Jun 2021, 16:34

Corsair1963 wrote:The proposed HHI CVX is nothing short of impressive! You have to give South Korea a lot of credit......assuming they build it?



CVX.jpg


Yeah, it looks like a Cylon starship from Battlestar Galactica (2004) :mrgreen:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7693
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Jun 2021, 03:09

ricnunes wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The proposed HHI CVX is nothing short of impressive! You have to give South Korea a lot of credit......assuming they build it?



CVX.jpg


Yeah, it looks like a Cylon starship from Battlestar Galactica (2004) :mrgreen:



It does sport a unique but attractive look......... :D


IMHO
Offline

zvonimir

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2021, 21:17

Unread post17 Jun 2021, 21:18

A newbie here (hello everyone), been following the forum and this very interesting topic for a while so I thought of adding my two cents :D on the Bee and Pocket Carriers (like the name).

I honestly thought that when UK in defence review decided to go STOVL and not CATOBAR with QE/PoW that it was a wrong decision as Harrier experience showed - it's a great plane for the purpose, but still not a full capability fighter. But if Bee will be as good as it currently sounds, this is a game-changer for many navies and for many even strategical balances - from former/current Harrier users (UK and Italy primarily, I do expect Spain to buy a squadron for JC2) to countries deploying carriers either for the first time (Korea) or after long time (Japan and Australia - same as Spain, I do expect that Australia will buy F-35B for their Canberras).

In general, if Bee can deliver most of the things a Cee can, it's a good question if it makes sense to do a CATOBAR even for the USN - especially if one Ford costs like 10-20 LHD/A (Spain paid cca 500M$ for JC2) it makes sense to build more ships with 30-ish planes each than suppercarrier that can carry 80 which in any battle will be prize target and thus will be kept safely from harms way and away from proper fray tying giant escort fleet to cover it's a$$. LHA with Bees is probably much more expandable so it can be kept closer and provide comparable sortie rate then Cees flying from faraway carrier. [see note]

Also, we see two schools of thought - ski-jump or flat-top, on Harrier it was concluded that ski-jump dramatically helped the take-of weight and performance, it'll be interesting to see which way will this go with the Bee - I do think that after CSG21 experience we'll see if US Marines will consider adding the ski-jumps to Americas (I think main opposition will be Navy brass and we might see yet another infight between the branches). It will be interesting to see if there will be some Bee landings on Canberras, Izumos or Dokdos during the CSG21 exercises (basically this is F-35B sales tour). What are Your thoughts - ski-jump of flat-top, I've seen in the topic some comments from RN people but is there a definitive answer somewhere?

Also, small navies can afford more than one carrier (Korea and Japan will pretty soon operate at least four each), we see how strained France is with operating a single (also nuclear) CATOBAR as they are not a likely Bee operator they cannot use their Mistrals as stand-ins. I would also not be surprised if UK would build their future amphibious ships also with Bee capability to complement QE/PoW into four-deck navy.

This will definitively be a interesting topic and development - from witnessing a full-flegged carrier race in Far East where Bee enables countries to keep up with China and it might be the crucial component in keeping or tipping the balance (not to mention UK return to the blue waters with CSG21).

[note] I would suggest this video below - Rear Admiral Chris Parry talking about Falklands, there is (for this topic) important bit where he explains how carriers were considered to be too valuable to be exposed to danger (Atlantic Conveyor was basically a decoy), limiting air coverage that they actually had. Great lecture - some amazing thoughts and information (barrage balloons forgotten in some warehouse, fact that it was very close to ARA loosing both the General Belgrano and Veinticinco de Mayo on the same day as each has a sub trailing them). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLn2TJZqR_o
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2913
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post18 Jun 2021, 13:30

Hi, welcome to the forum!

You raise some interesting topics and touch on some valid points. But before people jump down your throat, may I gently direct your attention to the search function? It works pretty well on this site, and there is a lot to read. Many of the topics you touch on have been extensively discussed and debated here: ramp or no ramp, CATOBAR vs STOVL, size of carrier etc.

Yes, the Bee does appear to change the carrier calculus. A boat with 10 Bees or a ship with 20 or more each becomes a force to be reckoned with.

Regarding ramps, the consensus here seems to be that the USN will never go to ramps on their LHA's as those boats are intended for assault purposes and ramps take away helicopter spots -- both operational as well as parking. But ramps do increase performance and either enable a shorter deck or more takeoff weight (more payload) for the same deck length. If the primary purpose of a boat is for troop assault, it seems navies opt for flat deck. If the primary purpose is as a small carrier, they seem to opt for ramps.

The Aussies here say there will never be Bees on their Canberras. (But never say never?)
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

zvonimir

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2021, 21:17

Unread post18 Jun 2021, 16:11

Thank You for the welcome, I will improve my reading of the topic history so not to repeat topics already discussed and I hope I will be able to provide some value to the topic and the forum. I would recommend all of You to follow the developments surrounding the CSG21 and deployment of QE with combined British and US(MC) planes - places they will go and exercises they'll do (and with whom) will I think show us the way in which many navies will choose.

I did listen to some additional talks with Chris Parry (one more below, pretty interesting and smart bloke), he was not very keen on the QE program but he did consider that LHA/D with Bees will be the ones doing the actual fighting with supercarriers ("if ship is looseable only then it's usable"). It would be interesting to see what he would say after CSG21: https://youtu.be/SabG8x5EdX4?t=2358
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3314
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post19 Jun 2021, 02:47

“...USN will never go to ramps on their LHA's as those boats are intended for assault purposes and ramps take away helicopter spots -- both operational as well as parking.”

x2
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1334
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post19 Jun 2021, 04:59

quicksilver wrote:“...USN will never go to ramps on their LHA's as those boats are intended for assault purposes and ramps take away helicopter spots -- both operational as well as parking.”

x2

x3

Just for perspective on what the US Navy might do,
Ignoring that on all US carriers there are more Growlers than most air forces have fighters, and more Hawkeyes than most air forces have radars, and more Seahawks than most air force/navies have helicopters, and ... well .. ignoring that ...

On Carriers (or in CVW wings,) the US Navy has 400 ish front line fighters deployable on Carriers. That's more ("front line") than any air force other than the USAF. While the LHD can, and in the past have, fill gaps with a handful or dozen AV8/F35B's in support ... It's not their job. If the Navy wants more F-35's in theatres, they would probably rather have a Ford Class with F35C's, than a ski ramp.

Now if a country doesn't even have 400 planes counting everything,- helicopter, cargo, trainers and fighters ... then, yeah, put a ramp on your one or two pocket carriers.

BUT The US Navy needs parking places on deck for the Marine's 600 MV-22/CH-53/H-1YZ's - as above more than most air forces have total aircraft- and they have to park somewhere. Real Estate is indeed precious.

At these scales, stealing two or three deck spots, times 9 or ten ships, means you have to build another complete Amphib ship to park the aircraft pushed off the boat.

Just saying,
BP
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26197
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jun 2021, 05:09

I'm not concerned about 'ski jumps' on flat decks of the USofA, however BUT the argument about the old style ski jump seen in HARRIER hairy years of yore for USMC/USN was IIRC laid out by Major Art Nalls. This text is in forum somewhere....

InNA nutSHELL 'old helos could operate from a slightly sloping deck (caused by ramp incline when flat deck level) because when the aft end was flooded causing the flat deck to SLOPE - OLD helos operated OK - but I don't know about new helos.

One may translate? here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=403062&hilit=Nalls+jump#p403062
OR download a PDF about jumpyDeSkies: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=21005 (PDF 11Mb)
"...page 9: “...The skeptics insist that ramps will displace landing spots. Tests prove otherwise. On a 12 degree ski jump approximately 150 feet long, the slope gradually increases from zero up to 12 degrees at the bow. The first half of the ski jump has a slope no greater than that of an LHA during wet-well operations with the well-deck flooded – both Harriers and helicopters can land on it...." [Major Art Nalls, USMC, "Why Don't We Have Any Ski Jumps," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, November 1990, 81.] http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a527872.pdf (small)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

zhangmdev

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 313
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post19 Jun 2021, 06:00

But a ski jump will prevent Osprey from performing short takeoff, which begins at Spot 4 and needs 200 ft of deck run.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=17415
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/3864805/ ... s-take-off
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26197
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jun 2021, 06:03

Why can't the OHpray start further back to be airborne by the time it is overhead the ski hump top? TESTING TESTING....
quote from PDF cited above:
"...During the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the V-22 program in the late 1990’s, landbased STO nacelle angles had been established at 60 deg and 75 deg. An extensive simulation effort was conducted to determine the optimal nacelle angle for the shipboard STO. Pilots noted that takeoff distance was heavily influenced by pilot technique. Changes in TCL [Thrust Control Lever] application rate could result in an order of magnitude difference in takeoff distance. From this simulator study, a TCL application rate of 4 inches in 3 seconds and nacelle angle of 70 deg was chosen. The nacelle angle was chosen because it provided a good compromise between altitude and airspeed gain after takeoff....

...Maneuver Procedures
All STOs began with the aircraft positioned on spot 4, and the aircraft rolling along the longitudinal “crow’s foot” lineup line, which provided approximately 208 feet of deck run....

...During testing, telemetry engineers were on board the ship monitoring takeoff distance and rate of climb (ROC) so that if trending suggested excessively long deck runs or shallow climbout for the targeted heavier GWs, testing could have been moved aft to spot 5; however, trending showed that all STOs were safe to begin at spot 4."
Attachments
WASPdeckSPOTS.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2913
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post19 Jun 2021, 13:32

spazsinbad wrote:Why can't the OHpray start further back to be airborne by the time it is overhead the ski hump top?


Deck spotting? Maybe during the jarhead version of launching an alpha strike the deck is too full of spotted aircraft? (Just thinking aloud.)

Is there some reason an Osprey cannot use the ramp itself?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26197
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jun 2021, 14:43

steve2267 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote: ...."Is there some reason an Osprey cannot use the ramp itself?"

Probably the undercarriage is a problem, depending upon slope of jumpDeSky rotor dangle may be an issue BUT COME HELL AND HIGH WATER the V-22 baby gets off in 208 feet (feets don't fail me now!). Flat Deck ordinary? TAKE OFF!
Attachments

MV-22 Osprey Takeoff from an Aircraft Carrier.mp4 [ 2.86 MiB | Viewed 686 times ]

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

zhangmdev

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 313
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post19 Jun 2021, 16:02

Ski jumping an Osprey would require 12 deg nacelle angle change between entering and exiting the ramp. I don't know if that is possible. The STO test shows the largest ground roll distance is just 14 percent of the available deck run distance. So for most of the duration of takeoff all wheels are off the deck, and the aircraft is slowing gaining altitude. That cannot happen when a ski jump ramp is ahead.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26197
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post19 Jun 2021, 16:08

Somehow the OHpray was able to operate from the QE recently but I guess she is longer decked for whatever take-off. The altitude gain rate is in the eye of the beholder which will depend upon WOD and V-22 weight and SKIjump HEIGHT.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gums and 35 guests