09 Dec 2016, 23:55
The F-35B has revolutionized military fighter aviation. Yes, the Harrier was the first successfully mass-produced VTOL / STOVL aircraft, but the Harrier is
The combination of supersonic, stealth, and vertical landing is something naval forces should capitalize on more than what has been done to date.
Just as basing helos on destroyer-sized ships revolutionized anti-submarine warfare, smaller sea faring nations would revolutionize their naval fighting ability by basing one-four F-35B's (or a future variant) on destroyer-sized ships. Existing destroyers, though requiring aviation facility modifications, could potentially base one or two F-35Bs per ship. These ships would cost far less than a conventional pocket carrier (e.g. LHA). I propose a new ship that could base a flight, i.e. an F-35 fourship. One or two F-35B's would shape the naval battlespace thusly:
A new class of ship, not much larger than existing destroyers, that is, in the 10-20000 ton range, launching four new F-35Ds, a variant which would be a cross between an F-35B and an F-35C, would give a smaller seafaring nation such as Norway, Singapore a potentially fearsome offensive naval punch. I don't see why the idea might not apply to Japan or Australia as well.
I am not discussing ideas here that are 5-10 years out. These ideas are more like 10-20 years out. If the F-15 / F-16 have been around since early / mid '70s (40+ years and going strong), it is not inconceivable that the F-35 will be around for 50-60+ years. Therefore, I am proposing some ideas about how this platform can be used and/or improved upon to shape the battlefield in the decades to come.
Launching from a destroyer-sized ship would require the F-35 to take-off vertically from existing ships (or modified ships). Leaving all weapons, except possibly a pair of AIM-120s, behind, and flying with as much internal fuel as possible, The F-35B may be able to range several hundred nautical miles away from it's launch point. The combination of altitude and range with its excellent sensors would permit the F-35 to perform an invaluable ISR role for the future naval strikeforce commander, especially if space-based assets are degraded or destroyed. In this role, the F-35 would not be too different from the scout planes of yore catapulted off battleships. With an empty weight of approx 32,300lb, and around 42-43000lbs vertical thrust, the current B may be able to takeoff, sans any armament, and loiter at a subsonic speed at 20-40000ft altitude a few hundred miles away from its homebase. As an ISR asset, this could be game changing.
If the same ship could host one or two V-22's with a refueling capability, range and loiter times could be greatly extended and weapons carriage (e.g. 2xAIM-120 and 2xJSM) enabled. With the Konsberg / Raytheon JSM, an F-35 equipped destroyer task force could put much larger naval forces in jeopardy upwards of 4-600 nm away. Even without any anti-ship cruise missiles, just as in a recent test where an F-35B successfully cued a an SM-6 to intercept a target, an unarmed (or AMRAAM-only) F-35B could identify targets hundreds of nautical miles away and cue vertically launched LRASMs to service those threats.
Sonobuoy's are approximately 4-5" in diameter, 36" long and weigh 17-22lbs. (AN/SSQ-47B, AN/SSQ-553G). If a suitable weapons bay carrier / deployment mechanism could be developed, it may be possible to put 30+ sonobuoys on an F-35B. The possibility of a surface combatant to rapidly deploy ASW sonobuoy lines hundreds of miles from the surface ship could potentially revolutionize ASW warfare as we know it without a nation-state having to invest in a CV / S-3 combination.
What future improvements in the F-35B would enhance these naval tactics? A weapons bay large enough to hold the JSM, and increased vertical lift. Gen Bogdan stated that if they re-design the weapons bay, they will only do it one time. Any such weapons bay re-design should strongly consider being able to hold at least the JSM. Bonus points for anything larger. Increased thrust, esp. vertical lift. If future F135 Block upgrades include increasing the lift-fan capacity to match any increased thrust, the greater vertical lift will either increase range by permitting more fuel to be carried, or enable the deployment of a minimal anti-ship weapon set from a vertical takeoff mode. Increased fuel efficiencies that P&W have touted will also range and loiter times.
Lastly, since I am dreaming outside the box... I envision a ship around 600' long, which recovers aircraft via a vertical landing area astern, moves the aircraft inside a hangar-like structure, and, as the aircraft move towards the bow, they are refueled, and rearmed. After refueling/rearming, the aircraft are catapulted out of the superstructure (yes, Battlestar Galactica-like) using an EMALS-type catapult. To keep size / weight / expense down, there would be only one EMALS catapult per ship. A second landing pad above the hangar/superstructure, just ahead of the primary, stern vertical landing pad, would be used to service / launch / land helos and/or tilt-rotors. During bad weather, the helos / tilt-rotors would land aft and be moved forward into the superstructure. Eight celled vertical launch systems could be positioned around the periphery of the ship fore and aft.
Hosting four F-35BC's, this light carrier could shape the naval battlespace for a thousand nautical miles around itself as the F-35BC would be able to takeoff with much more fuel / armament than a VTO-only Bee.
Here is my (quasi) techical question for you aircraft structures gnomes: How many pounds of structural weight would be required to be able to EMALS catapult launch a Bee? Since the aircraft is going to land vertically (in my scenario), you do not have to add all the weight to enable an arrested landing, but it is going to require strengthening to be catapulted.
One additional thought: STO-catapult. The need here is to increase the fuel and weapons that an F-35B can takeoff with. Perhaps this F-35BC could takeoff in STOVL mode-four, but using an EMALS-lite cat to make it an assisted STOVL launch.
(Thus endeth my daydream. Nomex civvies are in place.... fire away.)
- NOT stealthy
- Difficult / dangerous to land vertically
- subsonic-only
The combination of supersonic, stealth, and vertical landing is something naval forces should capitalize on more than what has been done to date.
Just as basing helos on destroyer-sized ships revolutionized anti-submarine warfare, smaller sea faring nations would revolutionize their naval fighting ability by basing one-four F-35B's (or a future variant) on destroyer-sized ships. Existing destroyers, though requiring aviation facility modifications, could potentially base one or two F-35Bs per ship. These ships would cost far less than a conventional pocket carrier (e.g. LHA). I propose a new ship that could base a flight, i.e. an F-35 fourship. One or two F-35B's would shape the naval battlespace thusly:
- Greatly increase the SA of the naval commander.
- Potentially increase striking distance to hundreds of nautical miles
- Potentially revolutionize anti-submarine operations (yet again over helo borne sub-hunters)
A new class of ship, not much larger than existing destroyers, that is, in the 10-20000 ton range, launching four new F-35Ds, a variant which would be a cross between an F-35B and an F-35C, would give a smaller seafaring nation such as Norway, Singapore a potentially fearsome offensive naval punch. I don't see why the idea might not apply to Japan or Australia as well.
I am not discussing ideas here that are 5-10 years out. These ideas are more like 10-20 years out. If the F-15 / F-16 have been around since early / mid '70s (40+ years and going strong), it is not inconceivable that the F-35 will be around for 50-60+ years. Therefore, I am proposing some ideas about how this platform can be used and/or improved upon to shape the battlefield in the decades to come.
Launching from a destroyer-sized ship would require the F-35 to take-off vertically from existing ships (or modified ships). Leaving all weapons, except possibly a pair of AIM-120s, behind, and flying with as much internal fuel as possible, The F-35B may be able to range several hundred nautical miles away from it's launch point. The combination of altitude and range with its excellent sensors would permit the F-35 to perform an invaluable ISR role for the future naval strikeforce commander, especially if space-based assets are degraded or destroyed. In this role, the F-35 would not be too different from the scout planes of yore catapulted off battleships. With an empty weight of approx 32,300lb, and around 42-43000lbs vertical thrust, the current B may be able to takeoff, sans any armament, and loiter at a subsonic speed at 20-40000ft altitude a few hundred miles away from its homebase. As an ISR asset, this could be game changing.
If the same ship could host one or two V-22's with a refueling capability, range and loiter times could be greatly extended and weapons carriage (e.g. 2xAIM-120 and 2xJSM) enabled. With the Konsberg / Raytheon JSM, an F-35 equipped destroyer task force could put much larger naval forces in jeopardy upwards of 4-600 nm away. Even without any anti-ship cruise missiles, just as in a recent test where an F-35B successfully cued a an SM-6 to intercept a target, an unarmed (or AMRAAM-only) F-35B could identify targets hundreds of nautical miles away and cue vertically launched LRASMs to service those threats.
Sonobuoy's are approximately 4-5" in diameter, 36" long and weigh 17-22lbs. (AN/SSQ-47B, AN/SSQ-553G). If a suitable weapons bay carrier / deployment mechanism could be developed, it may be possible to put 30+ sonobuoys on an F-35B. The possibility of a surface combatant to rapidly deploy ASW sonobuoy lines hundreds of miles from the surface ship could potentially revolutionize ASW warfare as we know it without a nation-state having to invest in a CV / S-3 combination.
What future improvements in the F-35B would enhance these naval tactics? A weapons bay large enough to hold the JSM, and increased vertical lift. Gen Bogdan stated that if they re-design the weapons bay, they will only do it one time. Any such weapons bay re-design should strongly consider being able to hold at least the JSM. Bonus points for anything larger. Increased thrust, esp. vertical lift. If future F135 Block upgrades include increasing the lift-fan capacity to match any increased thrust, the greater vertical lift will either increase range by permitting more fuel to be carried, or enable the deployment of a minimal anti-ship weapon set from a vertical takeoff mode. Increased fuel efficiencies that P&W have touted will also range and loiter times.
Lastly, since I am dreaming outside the box... I envision a ship around 600' long, which recovers aircraft via a vertical landing area astern, moves the aircraft inside a hangar-like structure, and, as the aircraft move towards the bow, they are refueled, and rearmed. After refueling/rearming, the aircraft are catapulted out of the superstructure (yes, Battlestar Galactica-like) using an EMALS-type catapult. To keep size / weight / expense down, there would be only one EMALS catapult per ship. A second landing pad above the hangar/superstructure, just ahead of the primary, stern vertical landing pad, would be used to service / launch / land helos and/or tilt-rotors. During bad weather, the helos / tilt-rotors would land aft and be moved forward into the superstructure. Eight celled vertical launch systems could be positioned around the periphery of the ship fore and aft.
Hosting four F-35BC's, this light carrier could shape the naval battlespace for a thousand nautical miles around itself as the F-35BC would be able to takeoff with much more fuel / armament than a VTO-only Bee.
Here is my (quasi) techical question for you aircraft structures gnomes: How many pounds of structural weight would be required to be able to EMALS catapult launch a Bee? Since the aircraft is going to land vertically (in my scenario), you do not have to add all the weight to enable an arrested landing, but it is going to require strengthening to be catapulted.
One additional thought: STO-catapult. The need here is to increase the fuel and weapons that an F-35B can takeoff with. Perhaps this F-35BC could takeoff in STOVL mode-four, but using an EMALS-lite cat to make it an assisted STOVL launch.
(Thus endeth my daydream. Nomex civvies are in place.... fire away.)
Last edited by steve2267 on 10 Dec 2016, 02:37, edited 1 time in total.
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.
