intergration of F35B on US CVN's

[StingrayOZ]

It’s not the way the USMC do business. Firstly their LHD decks are longer than others and the ‘Queen Elizabeth’ class will not use full deck length for takeoff. So they get a better run up before the end of the deck. Secondly a ski-jump will take away 2-3 helicopter takeoff/landing points which the USMC doesn’t think is worth the benefit.

Yes but the ski jump would allow more deck space to be avalible when operating fixed wing aircraft. It may not be optimal, but then again F-35B's on CVN's are also not optimal either. USMC wants it both ways.

Two BPE LHD + one 30,000t+ Roro or simular will be a massive upgrade for the ADF. Origionally the navy seemed very much against the idea of the skijump, now its back. The BPE won out over the Mistral despite the Mistral having ever important lower crewing numbers. There is no offical written plan to aquire the F-35B, doesn't mean its not going to happen, there is a reason why they wouldn't have an offical F-35B aquisition plan.

 

[AegisFC]

Yes but the ski jump would allow more deck space to be avalible when operating fixed wing aircraft. It may not be optimal, but then again F-35B's on CVN's are also not optimal either. USMC wants it both ways.

Yes but the additional helicopters are more important for the primary mission of the LHD's of putting the most marines on the beach as quick as possible than operating a handful of fixed wing aircraft.

 

[Tasman]

Yes but the additional helicopters are more important for the primary mission of the LHD's of putting the most marines on the beach as quick as possible than operating a handful of fixed wing aircraft.

That will also be one of the main arguments against acquiring F-35Bs for the RAN ships. In the Australian situation I believe the fact that the RAN has no specialist carriers adds weight to arguments to embark a small number of F-35Bs. In the case of the USN the option to operate F-35Bs from the CVNs exists, even if the navy is unhappy about VSTOL aircraft operating from the decks of the big carriers. The USN also has a large number of LHD/LHA type ships and it may be feasible to operate a couple in the carrier role, with an airgroup of F-35Bs, Super Cobras and Seahawks, in support of amphibious operations.

Cheers

 

[harryriedl]

It’s not the way the USMC do business. Firstly their LHD decks are longer than others and the ‘Queen Elizabeth’ class will not use full deck length for takeoff. So they get a better run up before the end of the deck. Secondly a ski-jump will take away 2-3 helicopter takeoff/landing points which the USMC doesn’t think is worth the benefit.

this could change http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/08/marine_lustymain_070805/
i found it especially interesting that the marines particularly liked the ski jump and have been trying to have it added to their ships and that a 22,000 ton ships more stable than 40,000 ton Amfib

 

[AegisFC]

It isn't going to change anything, the Gators are full up assault ships with a strictly secondary carrier role, the loss of even one helicopter spot is unaccectable to every Marine except the Harrier pilots.

And of course the Lusty is more stable than an anphib, the Gators are have nice flat bottoms with well decks, again the ships are primarily troop carriers, not strike aircraft carrier.

I did like the article though, it again proves the RN has a lot less stick up its posterior than the USN.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The U.S. Navy will operate the F-35C on aircraft carriers, not the F-35B. The Marines will use the F-35B on assault ships though.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The U.S. Navy will operate the F-35C on aircraft carriers, not the F-35B. The Marines will use the F-35B on assault ships though.

You are not quite correct as you'd realise if you'd bothered reading the thread.

The USMC is only ordering the F-35B model and due to the Marine Aviation Squadrons deploying on USN Carriers, F-35B's look likely to deploy aboard USN carriers alongside F-35C's.

There is an article further back in the thread outlining then USN's objections to this plan.

Again I suggest you actually "read" these threads prior to adding your contributions. That you keep making errors on these relatively basic matters must be somewhat embarassing.

 

[Tasman]

this could change http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/08/marine_lustymain_070805/
i found it especially interesting that the marines particularly liked the ski jump and have been trying to have it added to their ships and that a 22,000 ton ships more stable than 40,000 ton Amfib

Interesting that the negative opinions of many senior naval and marine corps officers towards the fitting of ski jumps on the big deck amphibious ships are not shared by the Harrier pilots.

Perhaps there is a case for a portion of the LHD/LHA force to be fitted with ski jumps to enhance their capability when operating Harriers (and later F-35Bs) in support of amphibious operations. Incorporating this in four of the new LHA(R) class would provide an enhanced aviation capability in approximately a third of the LHD/LHA force if the Tarawas are replaced on a one for one basis.

Cheers

 

[windscorpion]

wouldn't it be possible to have a ramp that can be raised or lowered depending on need?

 

[swerve]

wouldn't it be possible to have a ramp that can be raised or lowered depending on need?

It's curved. You can't just lower it to flush with the deck. Would be quite tricky, & would take space.

 

[windscorpion]

I can't see it being that difficult personally.

 

[swerve]

I can't see it being that difficult personally.

It's certainly possible. But it would take up a lot of otherwise useful space, & add cost, complexity & weight - all undesirable. I don't see the point, for another helicopter spot.

You need to -
1) Replace the fixed ski-jump with something that can be lowered, maybe foldable (see 4), but as strong as the current fixed structure when secured in place.
2) To raise & lower it will need motors. Space has to be found, & weight allowed for.
3) The ski-jump & supporting structure has to have space to stow it in.
4) There has to be a flush deck in place when the ski-jump is lowered. You can use the ski-jump plates, as they don't have to be individually curved (though looking carefully at ski-jumps it seems some are) but then they have to be articulated, & your lowering mechanism will have to align them. It can't just pivot the whole thing down, it has to fold some of it.

Look at this picture of HMS Invincible. Where will you put that structure when you lower it? How much machinery & supporting structure will you need below deck?

http://www.targetlock.org.uk/seaharrier/service.html

Ships designed from scratch with ski-jumps can't really be modified . . .
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p155/cencio4/Principe de Asturias/AV8III.jpg
http://www.nato.int/pictures/database/large/b00691.jpg

 

[Pingu]

The two new UK carriers will be built in such a way that they can be optionally upgraded with arrestor wires and possibly catapults should the need arise.

I wonder how much it has cost for this capacity for optional upgrade and whether, since money has already been spent on the "option to upgrade in future", whether it would not be worthwhile to just install the catapults and arrestor wires anyway allowing for the more capable F35C to be acquired and also the E-2D perhaps as the FOAEW solution. If costs of catapults are a concern then why not examine a STOBAR possibility with the F35C?

After the Tornado is retired and replaced by the proposed "Force mix", the UK will lack a long-range aircraft and to be honest, no F35 variant appears to have a great range capabilty anyway (and nor does the Typhoon).

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The two new UK carriers will be built in such a way that they can be optionally upgraded with arrestor wires and possibly catapults should the need arise.

I wonder how much it has cost for this capacity for optional upgrade and whether, since money has already been spent on the "option to upgrade in future", whether it would not be worthwhile to just install the catapults and arrestor wires anyway allowing for the more capable F35C to be acquired and also the E-2D perhaps as the FOAEW solution. If costs of catapults are a concern then why not examine a STOBAR possibility with the F35C?

This is what i was thinking. Why limit yourself to STOVL when you have the capability to go CATOBAR and CTOL AEW and fighers? I doesn't mean you cant operate the F35B if you don't want too. The F35C is cheaper and more capable. And you get CTOL AEW like E2 which is far superior to the current sea king AEW helo. To be fair i've heard murmers about a V22 AEW platform with a large AESA radar. This will be a very capable AEW platform but still inferior to CTOL variants. Still the RN loves their harriers and they seem bent on having STOVL at the expence of CTOL, when they have a carrier that could easily have CATOBAR its even fitted for it! Oh well it'lle be a be a fearsome warship either way and give the RN force projection power only rivaled by the french and only surpassed by the USN.

After the Tornado is retired and replaced by the proposed "Force mix", the UK will lack a long-range aircraft and to be honest, no F35 variant appears to have a great range capabilty anyway (and nor does the Typhoon).

The F35A/C has an combat radii of 600 odd NM on internal fuel alone. Thats impresive for a tactical fighter. The typhoons radii is nothing to get exited over but its not intended to operate over long distances. Plus storm shadow helps that out a bit. But whats that got to do with the price of fish in china anyway???

 

[swerve]

The two new UK carriers will be built in such a way that they can be optionally upgraded with arrestor wires and possibly catapults should the need arise.

I wonder how much it has cost for this capacity for optional upgrade and whether, since money has already been spent on the "option to upgrade in future", whether it would not be worthwhile to just install the catapults and arrestor wires anyway allowing for the more capable F35C to be acquired and also the E-2D perhaps as the FOAEW solution. If costs of catapults are a concern then why not examine a STOBAR possibility with the F35C?...

It's not just costs of catapults, but cost, space, & weight of steam generating machinery. These are not steam turbine ships, & nor will they have nuclear reactors for making steam. I think the idea is that if we ever fit catapults, they'll be electromagnetic, but the technology isn't ready yet. The USA is working on it, & there's research elsewhere, including here in the UK. Maybe could be done at first refit.

 

[Pingu]

Thanks for your input. That does make a lot of sense actually.

I still think that it would be worth examining a STOBAR F35C capability though, then there would still be the option of adding catapults later for aircraft such as the E-2 to satisfy the FOAEW.

I think that the FOAEW will probably not be deployed until long after the ships are built (perhaps 2020+) because of delays and lack of funding etc. By then, EM catapult technology have matured and perhaps be feasible and affordable.

I'm guessing that if catapults would be installed and the E-2 was selected, then the ski-jump would have to be removed to prevent damage to the landing gears of the aircraft, which has proved to be a problem during the E-2 STOBAR tests.

 

[harryriedl]

It's not just costs of catapults, but cost, space, & weight of steam generating machinery. These are not steam turbine ships, & nor will they have nuclear reactors for making steam. I think the idea is that if we ever fit catapults, they'll be electromagnetic, but the technology isn't ready yet. The USA is working on it, & there's research elsewhere, including here in the UK. Maybe could be done at first refit.

i would wait for EMALS and keep the all electric navy which the RN is aiming for and it would lower costs and maintenances using EMALS system it isn't worth fitting steam cats if EMALS is so close

the most important thing about the F35B are that they leagues ahead compared with harriers the invinsables can still operate the F35B.
400nm range is excellent for a STOVL and isn't to bad compared with conventional fighters.

i would like EMALS refitted in 1st or second refit like swerve

 

[swerve]

...I'm guessing that if catapults would be installed and the E-2 was selected, then the ski-jump would have to be removed to prevent damage to the landing gears of the aircraft, which has proved to be a problem during the E-2 STOBAR tests.

One configuration which has been mooted is angled catapults for CATOBAR ops, & retaining the ski-jump for STOVL operations. Dunno if it'll ever happen, though. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Distiller]

Interoperability of the CVF with USN and French carriers would suffer if not at least the arrestor complex would be installed (not taking into account sortie rate here). Not sure if a Hawkeye can take off over the ramp if starting way back (over a clean deck), but JATOs would be an option if wind-over-deck is too low. But I doubt Hawkeyes can land w/o arresting cables on 200m or so, even with high wind-over-deck. Ditto for larger UAVs and potential future manned wide-area ASW aircraft. And I really don't see an AEW-Osprey as an option. Compromise could be two EMALS (straight from CVN 21, which comes about the same time) on the side deck plus an reduced/optimized arrestor complex.

 

[Pingu]

Interoperability of the CVF with USN and French carriers would suffer if not at least the arrestor complex would be installed (not taking into account sortie rate here).

Apparently, sortie rate will be higher with a STOVL fighter, which is one advantage of STOVL. But I still think the 35C should be chosen because of range and weapons advantage. Although weapons like the SDB and PW4 are small, the 35B will probably lose out on a stand-off weapons capability because of shunken bays. I am aware that there may be diffculties installing a shrunken Meteor onto the CTOL JSF and probably even more difficulty with the STOVL. Also, I wonder how many PW4s/SDBs the 35B will be able to carry internally and whether this will again, be hindered by bay shrinkage.

Not sure if a Hawkeye can take off over the ramp if starting way back (over a clean deck), but JATOs would be an option if wind-over-deck is too low.

Apparently, studies were done a while ago for E-2 ramp takeoffs and were considered unsatisfactory due to landing gear fatigue. I also imagine JATOs would be impractical and unaffordable.

I really don't see an AEW-Osprey as an option.

I agree. With the V22 cabin being unpressurised, I wonder how much advantage they'll have over standard helicopters in terms of altitude and endurance and whether the cost and complexities of the V22 are justified.

One configuration which has been mooted is angled catapults for CATOBAR ops, & retaining the ski-jump for STOVL operations. Dunno if it'll ever happen, though. I won't hold my breath.

I think this seems like a nice option too. At least then, the E-2 and future UAVs could be deployed. The FOAEW would probably take ages to be deployed anyway and by the time it is, the angled catapults may have been installed. I am unfamiliar with how refits work, how often are these done and when do you think the first is likely to take place? Also, why is a ski-jump even being installed? surely the deck is long enough for the F35B to take off from without a ramp, just like AV8Bs take off from their shorter LHDs.