F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

[1st503rdsgt]

If you are going to do a trimaran carrier with a ski-jump, you should have the take-off runway go the length of the ship, and have a shorter landing strip on one of the out riggers -- so that you wouldn't need to angle it.
Alternately, you could have a deck that is one big rectangle it's whole length and width, letting you have multiple full-length runways.

Similar to this?

[spazsinbad]

How about huge deck acreage with a circular banked runway? Howabout straight runways at every ten degrees or less depending on crosswind landing / takeoff capabilities. Are we talking arrest/cat or STOVL ops? Already there are plans for such humungous non moving platforms that are towed offshore for the duration (perhaps the runway ideas are a stretch too far but hey anything goes here - damn the torpedoes - full steam ahead).

[1st503rdsgt]

Cavour was modelled after a USN study for a 'Sea Control Ship' back in the 1970s.

I don't think so. Actually, that was more the case with the Principe de Asturias (Spain) and Giuseppe Garibaldi (Italy)... as I believe the SCS was supposed to be quite a bit smaller than the Cavour, which was designed much later in any case.

[count_to_10]

If you are going to do a trimaran carrier with a ski-jump, you should have the take-off runway go the length of the ship, and have a shorter landing strip on one of the out riggers -- so that you wouldn't need to angle it.
Alternately, you could have a deck that is one big rectangle it's whole length and width, letting you have multiple full-length runways.

Similar to this?

No, that still has just one center line runway as far as I can tell, and it doesn't extend the whole length.

[marksengineer]

Spaz, thanks. Think you'll see a move by Pacific regional powers to buy the F-35B if and when USMC F-35B's engage in cross-deck operations with their aviation capable ships. Nothing like seeing a product in action to make you want to buy it.

As for the styles of pocket carriers everyone is forgeting the ones used in WWII. They are called Islands. A STOVL aircraft in jungle hides on islands around the perimeter of the Asia land mass would present a large targeting problem in my opinion. Tough to sink an island and if you could marry the basing with air to air refueling and or FARP's you might have something. At he very least you could control the sea lanes.

[1st503rdsgt]

As for the styles of pocket carriers everyone is forgeting the ones used in WWII. They are called Islands. A STOVL aircraft in jungle hides on islands around the perimeter of the Asia land mass would present a large targeting problem in my opinion. Tough to sink an island and if you could marry the basing with air to air refueling and or FARP's you might have something. At he very least you could control the sea lanes.

Even for mere STOVL operations, such bases would be troublesome to build and maintain in peacetime. Carriers are also a bother, but they can be moved around as needed, which is easier than maintaining a large number of island-garrisons with nothing to do most of the time.

China is already at great expense doing just what you suggest on only ONE island, which may prove to be pointless should tensions ease in the area.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/a ... 21002.aspx

[velocityvector]

...in WWII. They are called Islands. A STOVL aircraft in jungle hides on islands around the perimeter of the Asia land mass would present a large targeting problem in my opinion. Tough to sink an island and if you could marry the basing with air to air refueling and or FARP's you might have something. At he very least you could control the sea lanes.

Island airbases are fixed in terms of their coordinates. Still they must be defended by means that are kept local. All this spills useful data for targeting. So island defenses can be surveilled, targeted and overwhelmed with relative higher reliability vice mobile platforms. Beat down F-35 resupply and island installations and you mission kill F-35 even if the actual aircrafts are a hoppin' around the archipeligo. Your suggestion just won't be safe in an era of submarines and various guided missiles. The distributed approach fails when it comes to timely resupply, refurbishment and repair.

[archeman]

Velocityvector
Beat down F-35 resupply and island installations and you mission kill F-35 even if the actual aircrafts are a hoppin' around the archipeligo.

vv, the point you make is a good one, but you might be surprised how resilient air bases can be.
I read an AF Mag article about an evaluation of a base under attack and about the most critical item turns out to be the runway repair equipment. In fact that equipment is so important for standard configuration aircraft that the base commander started throwing out aircraft from his hardened bunkers and putting the runway repair gear in there --- since according to his logic he could live without a few aircraft but he couldn't live without the runway repair gear. Now fact or into his thinking STOVL aircraft supply and the base becomes very resilient indeed.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... salty.aspx

[velocityvector]

Persistent VX delivered in waves over time. (Even insane Japanese cultists can figure that denial technique well enough.) Add high explosives under beidou and mix other ordnance deliveries with different guidances. Heck, if it's important enough of a target the Chinese will land paratroops by glider or sumbitchmarine. F-35 or any other fixed wing may enjoy poor prospects in terms of mission effectiveness under island-hopping scenario. B model won't matter.

[1st503rdsgt]

vv, the point you make is a good one, but you might be surprised how resilient air bases can be.
I read an AF Mag article about an evaluation of a base under attack and about the most critical item turns out to be the runway repair equipment. In fact that equipment is so important for standard configuration aircraft that the base commander started throwing out aircraft from his hardened bunkers and putting the runway repair gear in there --- since according to his logic he could live without a few aircraft but he couldn't live without the runway repair gear. Now fact or into his thinking STOVL aircraft supply and the base becomes very resilient indeed.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... salty.aspx

I'm not so concerned with the island garrisons' in function in war as I am with their utility in peace. You'd have to have several just to cover the theater I assume we're talking about (Pacific Rim), and they'd just be a logistic burden most of the time. Carriers are the most effective means of covering a large area of ocean most of the time; and if there is a war, at least then you'll know which islands need to be utilized.

I've never been a big fan of the USMC's expeditionary/austere base concept. Seems to be a rather expensive duplication of facilities that would most likely already be there in most areas of interest (airports).

[spazsinbad]

Aaahh - how easy it is to drift from thread topic. Back to austere base bashing now? How about FOB for a change of nomclature? But this aint the USMC bashing thread is it? '1st503rdsgt' how about you start such a thread as has been suggested so that all the hate can go there and I'll ignore youse.

[1st503rdsgt]

Persistent VX delivered in waves over time. (Even insane Japanese cultists can figure that denial technique well enough.) Add high explosives under beidou and mix other ordnance deliveries with different guidances. Heck, if it's important enough of a target the Chinese will land paratroops by glider or sumbitchmarine. F-35 or any other fixed wing may enjoy poor prospects in terms of mission effectiveness under island-hopping scenario. B model won't matter.

I don't like the island base idea either, but you're starting embarrass me here. Missiles are no way to deliver persistent waves of anything (even China would run out pretty quick); and no one with the resources to build such missiles in quantity would be so stupid as to use VX (you need to lay off the paperback fiction). Gliders have been obsolete for decades, and paratroopers better have a really big island to land on or you'll end up with a lot of shark-bait. And did you mean submarines? If so, those aren't going to work for anything other than small-time infiltration.

[velocityvector]

Aaahh - how easy it is to drift from thread topic. Back to austere base bashing now? How about FOB for a change of nomclature? But this aint the USMC bashing thread is it? '1st503rdsgt' how about you start such a thread as has been suggested so that all the hate can go there and I'll ignore youse.

Presumed reference frame: proximate to the Peoples Republic of China. You gotta another relevant one, please do share.

[spazsinbad]

'velocityvector' the thread title is "F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers" - the first post is

"I've stated in previous posts that one of the F-35B's good points is the capability it offers to US allies who've been shut out of front-line naval TACAIR for decades by the high costs of CATOBAR ships and operations.


While discussing this recent article on LHA-6 AMERICA over on Spaz's long thread, http://defense.aol.com/2012/10/03/navys ... ous-ships/ I started thinking:

-How many of the non-US flat-decks already out there could actually be adapted to the F-35B? (perhaps not that many)

-Would any countries without carriers consider investing in such assets if the F-35B proves workable?

-What would be the minimum size for a useful Bee carrier?

-How would a dozen or so non-US Bee carriers change the international security picture?"

UhOH. China? Wot China?

[1st503rdsgt]

Spaz, seems you might be right about a Dokdo successor (F-35B capable) after all, although it looks to be another LHD ship similar in size to the Canberras. Only one mention in the comment section of Strategypage, though I suspect a Hangul-speaker might find more.


http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnava ... ofcomments