There is no good reason why F-35Bs cannot be on CVNs

I could not help but notice recently that the USN had the
Carrier variant of the V-22 Come aboard.
This varient is the CMV-22 and will carry out the carrier on board delivery mission. This aircraft was chosen
Because its the only way to get the
F-35Cs engine on board without a sling.
Im not sure if the Navy realized it but they paved the way
For F-35B flight ops on board the CVN.
Here are a list of the excuses over 10 years ago that alot of people brought up.

1. That stovl would foul up the delicate ballet dance called flight ops.

2. That it would complicate logistics.

3. That you would have trouble getting the engine module or lift fan on board.

4. The F-35B has short range.

5. The Marines like to be disembarked and free from carrier big decks. (See Guadal canal)

The only reasons at this point for not having cross deck are 5 and a political aspect. Questions might be asked in Congress about the need for small decks if there is to much consolidation.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Stovl ops on a CVN.

https://youtu.be/MI0ouMjq6lM

1-4 are plenty good enough reasons.

1-4 are plenty good enough reasons.

I agree that reasons 2 and 3 are good enough.

However I don't agree much with reasons 1 and 4, because:
With reason 1- I don't believe that STOVL would foul up the delicate ballet dance called flight ops. Operating the F-35B during takeoffs would be basically the same as doing it with the F-35C with the diference that the F-35B wouldn't need to use the catapults when taking off (which would even simplify the "flight ops ballet dance") while landing it wouldn't be different from a MH-60 or CMV-22 which also operates from the carrier.
Regarding reason 4-, I believe this wouldn't be much of an issue since the F-35B has a similar range compared to the legacy Hornet and if Legacy Hornet operated well for many decades from USN carrier decks so would the F-35B.

1-4 are plenty good enough reasons.

I agree that reasons 2 and 3 are good enough.

However I don't agree much with reasons 1 and 4, because:
With reason 1- I don't believe that STOVL would foul up the delicate ballet dance called flight ops. Operating the F-35B during takeoffs would be basically the same as doing it with the F-35C with the diference that the F-35B wouldn't need to use the catapults when taking off (which would even simplify the "flight ops ballet dance") while landing it wouldn't be different from a MH-60 or CMV-22 which also operates from the carrier.
Regarding reason 4-, I believe this wouldn't be much of an issue since the F-35B has a similar range compared to the legacy Hornet and if Legacy Hornet operated well for many decades from USN carrier decks so would the F-35B.

Exactly the F-35B has more range than a legacy Hornet, that is being replaced by the F-35C.. There isn't a reason to hinder cross decking except for political reasons.
You may even get a higher sortie rate than the C varient.

Exactly the F-35B has more range than a legacy Hornet, that is being replaced by the F-35C.. There isn't a reason to hinder cross decking except for political reasons.
You may even get a higher sortie rate than the C varient.

Internal Fuel

F/A-18E 14,700 lbs

F/A-18F 13,760 lbs

F-35B 13,500 lbs

F-35C 19,200 lbs

Exactly the F-35B has more range than a legacy Hornet, that is being replaced by the F-35C.. There isn't a reason to hinder cross decking except for political reasons.
You may even get a higher sortie rate than the C varient.

Internal Fuel

F/A-18E 14,700 lbs

F/A-18F 13,760 lbs

F-35B 13,500 lbs

Why are you comparing the F-35B to the E/F hornet?
Why not compare it to the C?
And even with that, who knows how much fuel is saved because the F-35B is in a configuration versus, a combat loaded E/F.
Put serveral paveways and 2 Amraams on a F-18E/F and the targeting pod and lets see if it reaches as far as a F-35B even with 1000 lbs less fuel.

Here are a list of the excuses over 10 years ago that alot of people brought up.

1. That stovl would foul up the delicate ballet dance called flight ops.

5. The Marines like to be disembarked and free from carrier big decks. (See Guadal canal)

We want fewer Marines on CVNs, not more.

Here are a list of the excuses over 10 years ago that alot of people brought up.

1. That stovl would foul up the delicate ballet dance called flight ops.

5. The Marines like to be disembarked and free from carrier big decks. (See Guadal canal)

We want fewer Marines on CVNs, not more.

So a V-22 doesn't crash the party but an F-35B does?
Meh Navy logic at its finest.

Exactly the F-35B has more range than a legacy Hornet, that is being replaced by the F-35C.. There isn't a reason to hinder cross decking except for political reasons.
You may even get a higher sortie rate than the C varient.

Internal Fuel

F/A-18E 14,700 lbs

F/A-18F 13,760 lbs

F-35B 13,500 lbs

Why are you comparing the F-35B to the E/F hornet?
Why not compare it to the C?
And even with that, who knows how much fuel is saved because the F-35B is in a configuration versus, a combat loaded E/F.
Put serveral paveways and 2 Amraams on a F-18E/F and the targeting pod and lets see if it reaches as far as a F-35B even with 1000 lbs less fuel.

The USN has already retired the F/A-18A+/C from Aircraft Carriers.

So a V-22 doesn't crash the party but an F-35B does?
Meh Navy logic at its finest.

even the V-22 COD is going to be rare compared to the main show of fixed wing fighters. When those CVN decks get humming you have jets landing every 2 minute or so. it is "controlled chaos" and they don't want to add another element to that, especially when they are content to launch aircraft the old fashioned way from the front of the ship like they have for decades.

its basically a solution looking for a problem as far as the USN is concerned, there's no problem and they already launch and recover fixed wing fighters just fine, thanks.






you can do lots of crazy stuff with CVNs, its just not the best use of them and you have to severly disrupt the normal business to do it

I've never been stuck on a CVN, but they really do try to keep these operations seperate for reasons that should be obvious in this photo:

“The only reasons at this point for not having cross deck are...”

If there was/were a compelling reason(s) for them to do so (‘cross deck’), the obstacles against such a thing would evaporate. So, what operational circumstance(s) compel(s) such a.thing at this point?

“The only reasons at this point for not having cross deck are...”

If there was/were a compelling reason(s) for them to do so (‘cross deck’), the obstacles against such a thing would evaporate. So, what operational circumstance(s) compel(s) such a.thing at this point?

I told you its politics. The navy wanted the Marines to help with the F-35C buy, so they forced them to take Cs on deck. A squadren of Bees could have operated just fine as a replacement for the F-18C. They used part of the Marine aviation budget to increase the F-35C buy and push the price down. Im not saying its bad. Infact its it's pretty clever. But when I see a heavy CMV-22 taking off with an F-35 engine on board, Im thinking someone is drinkkng the navys punch. To answer your Question the operational circumstance is the Bee replacing the F-18c in its role, but the navy had orher ideas.

I told you its politics. The navy wanted the Marines to help with the F-35C buy, so they forced them to take Cs on deck. A squadren of Bees could have operated just fine as a replacement for the F-18C. They used part of the Marine aviation budget to increase the F-35C buy and push the price down. Im not saying its bad. Infact its it's pretty clever. But when I see a heavy CMV-22 taking off with an F-35 engine on board, Im thinking someone is drinkkng the navys punch. To answer your Question the operational circumstance is the Bee replacing the F-18c in its role, but the navy had orher ideas.

The Marines (USMC) have operated from USN Aircraft Carriers. Since the beginning of Naval Aviation and have regularly deploy aboard ship. As a matter of fact currently four slots are held for them....


As for the F-35B and F-35C. The Navy wanted the USMC to operate the F-35C over the F-35B on their Aircraft Carriers. Because one they offer more range and heavier payloads. In addition they also are part of the planned (future) Airwings for all USN Carriers. In short the "B" was not part of their plan....

Honestly, I think your making a lot of assumptions. Which, may sounds and even have merit. Yet, that hardly makes them true.

“I told you its politics.“

You didn’t answer the question. So, I’ll repeat it for you — what operational circumstance(s) compel(s) such a thing (Bs on CVNs) at this point?

I told you its politics. The navy wanted the Marines to help with the F-35C buy, so they forced them to take Cs on deck. A squadren of Bees could have operated just fine as a replacement for the F-18C.

not really, because they have to alter operations to do so. I think youre getting the wrong impression.




heres an MH-53 landing on the cats, thus theres no reason why we can't use the CVN like an L-class amphibious ship. we should begin stationing a Battalion Landing Team on all CVNs, and an F-35B det. You'll Barely the dozen helicopters, 6 F-35Bs and thousand or so additional Marines. They can sleep in the footlockers.

Like i said "can we do it?" of course! can we do it while operating the same way? no we have to switch things around.

In order to do carrier ops, one has to know the unique characteristics of each aircraft. get it wrong and stuff blows up and people die. L-class are the same way. If you ospreys taking troops aboard on the flight deck, you can't launch F-35s now. so you better do this stuff in order and understand how everything interrelates (jet blast which varries, Rotor wash which also varries. prop wash can actually knock you over worse than an F-18 because the ramp behind it can't catch all the "air") if you try to park a -53 like a -60 you're in for a surprise too

https://cdn10.picryl.com/photo/1984/10/22/a-british-royal-navy-frsmk-1-sea-harrier-aircraft-taxis-on-the-flight-deck-c969e2-1024.jpg

do I really have to explain the difference between an Osprey doing a tilted nacelle running takeoff vs the hundreds of feet required for an F-35B to get airborne? since theyre both "STOVLing"

A CVN is versatile, its just not much of a "multi tasker" when one thing is going on, other things tend to stop.

Marine aviation budget

no such animal.

to increase the F-35C buy and push the price down. Im not saying its bad. Infact its it's pretty clever. But when I see a heavy CMV-22 taking off with an F-35 engine on board, Im thinking someone is drinkkng the navys punch. To answer your Question the operational circumstance is the Bee replacing the F-18c in its role, but the navy had orher ideas.

I think you got it backwards. the USMC told the navy they were fine with operating from the big carriers, knowing the USN would say no. thats the purpose of the F-35B. its to get off the US Navy's super carriers, and have an "L-class only" asset. Thats the fun thing about Harriers, we could give them to the navy and they wouldn't even have pilots to fly them so they were never interested LOL yes there was a deal struck with Marine F-35Cs , and even that was later reduced.

We've has army chinooks operated of CVNs and LHDs, but luckily no one tried to force chinooks on us at all times in order to have "heavy lift" thats what the CH-53s are for. We don't need a useless or redundant detachment with us.