intergration of F35B on US CVN's

[swerve]

... 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.

I'm afraid I don't know the schedule for refits, but about the ski-jump - well, the USMC pilots who've recently been flying off Illustrious say they love it. On a shorter deck than they're used to, they're airborne faster, & climbing straight off the deck, whereas they're used to dipping below deck level on take off (sounds hairy to me!) & having to recover before they hit the oggin.

On the CVFs, the ski-jump will allow take off fully-loaded using only part of the deck. In theory, it should allow simultaneous landings & take-offs, though I don't know if that'll actually be done.

 

[harryriedl]

I'm afraid I don't know the schedule for refits, but about the ski-jump - well, the USMC pilots who've recently been flying off Illustrious say they love it. On a shorter deck than they're used to, they're airborne faster, & climbing straight off the deck, whereas they're used to dipping below deck level on take off (sounds hairy to me!) & having to recover before they hit the oggin.

On the CVFs, the ski-jump will allow take off fully-loaded using only part of the deck. In theory, it should allow simultaneous landings & take-offs, though I don't know if that'll actually be done.

it been in the design of the CVF right from the beginning simultaneous launch and take offs as well as 110 sorties in 24 hours [a Nimitz can do 140 sorties a day and the Gerald R ford can do 160 sorties surging to 210 sorties]
as well as very tight maximum launch and recovery times
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

 

[Super Nimrod]

110 sorties in 24 hours is not too shabby when we consider that the CVF's will operate many fewer airframes than a Nimitz

 

[riksavage]

STOVL I beleive will remain the preferred option for the following summarized reasons:

RAF/RN has operated STOVL for over 25years with great success;

It’s easier to keep pilots carrier qualified, particularly with the new assisted landing technology being introduced on the new carriers. Catapult operations require more training and practice to remain current;

Higher sortie rates - simultaneous landings and take off;

Ability to be used off-ship in poorly prepared landing zones, great for expeditionary warfare once a bridgehead is secured;

Brings something to the table nothing else currently offers, speed of a fixed wing, landing versatility and deploy-ability of a helicopter, and

With BAE’s future investment in an unmanned strike platform (The Taranis air vehicle, which will be capable of delivering weapons to a battlefield in another continent with a high level of autonomy) scheduled for flight tests in the next ten years we will see the long range deep-strike platform replaced, which coupled with Typhoon means there still remains a need for a unique STOVL platform. Hopefully a system like Taranis will be carrier capable?

 

[barra]

I was reading an article today out of the Feb 07 issue of Air Forces magazine that stated that operation of the STVOL F35B will see a 40% (I think) increase in sortie rates over the CATOBAR F35C version. I would have thought the more complex, i.e. more moving parts, STVOL would be more maintenance intensive and therefore take longer to turnaround. The article didnt elaborate on why it would see an increased sortie rate. Can anyone shine any light on why this would be so?

Hooroo

 

[rjmaz1]

The article didnt elaborate on why it would see an increased sortie rate. Can anyone shine any light on why this would be so?

Sortie rate would be increased when using the F-35B as its endurance would be significantly less than the F-35C.

The F-35B would have to return to the carrier to refuel and its sortie would have to be shorter.

So having a 40% improvement is not always a good thing.

You'd rather have aircraft performing 8 hours missions, so the sortie rate is lower but the same amount of firepower is in the air.

 

[barra]

OK, I thought the improvement in sortie rate was through some sort of ease of operation or increase in reliability. So you are saying it is out of necessity to achieve the same amount of time on station as the CTOL types?

Hooroo

 

[rjmaz1]

The people in support of the F-35C will say the sortie rate is increased by 40% only because it runs out of fuel 40% quicker and needs to refuel sooner...

The people in support of the F-35B will try and say that the sortie rate is higher due to other positive reasons. They may claim that the 40% will be an increase on top of the already maxed out conventional aircraft sortie rate. As far as i know the F-35B operations would cause half of the carrier to become unavailable for conventional aircraft so the sortie rate may go up but aircraft in the air will decrease.

No one would prefer an aircraft that had to refuel every hour but had an extremely high sortie rate.

If an aircraft could stay in the air for twice as long that means that half the amount of sorties are required to have the same number of birds in the air. An aircraft that can stay in the air twice as long will no doubt be able to fly further too, which the F-35C does.

The F-35C will have the greatest endurance out of all the Navy aircraft its sortie rate would then be the lowest. This is a good thing in my opinion.

 

[swerve]

Sortie rate would be increased when using the F-35B as its endurance would be significantly less than the F-35C.

The F-35B would have to return to the carrier to refuel and its sortie would have to be shorter.

So having a 40% improvement is not always a good thing.

You'd rather have aircraft performing 8 hours missions, so the sortie rate is lower but the same amount of firepower is in the air.

The RNs experience of carrier operations does not support the idea of 8 hour missions being practical in most circumstances. When supporting a low-intensity operation in a landlocked country, far from the sea, yes - but is that a typical naval air operation? Bosnia, Kosovo, & even more the Falklands, weren't like that. Why stay in the air long after all your ordnance is expended? Because that's what 8 hour missions implies, in most cases.

In a high-intensity war, being able to generate a high sortie rate matters. You want aircraft turned round as fast as they can be fuelled & armed. To prepare for leisurely wars, with aircraft loitering for long periods waiting for targets, is to risk compromising the ability to cope with the times when the chief difficulty is being able to hit all the hostiles heading ones way.

 

[10ringr]

i was thinking as all western navy's owing aircraft carriers except the French will be buying F35B for their vessels the

• the USMC are buying F35B to replace the f18 and the Av-8
• the Royal navy is buying the F35B
• the Italians are buying the F35B
• the Spanish are supposed to be buying F35B but they aren't in the programs membership so im not sure

well as the USMC are replaceing the hornets with the F35B i was wondering how the USN [with gritted teeth as they would prefer the USMC bought the F35Cs] will be intergeneration STOVL F35B into air wings of CATOBAR aircraft.

will the F35B be the first JSF to reach OCU status?

Beg your pardon gentlement but I could use some help with this troubling realization. The US has CSG (Carrier Strike Groups) which generally contain a couple destroyers, cruisers, frigates and a hunter/killer sub 7-10 ships. The US is supposed to have 11 active Carriers but I know that we only have about less then 300 surface ships or so. In doing the math the frightening realization is that we couldn't muster but maybe 5-6 carrier strike groups which is what we used for the war and that was by no means the demanding war that say China potentially would bring to the table. I just realized this and I've been around awhile! Also, I'm new and not sure how I might have started a "thread", is that what you call it? So forgive me as I'm learning. Perhaps one of you could help me with that too. Hutch

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hutch, wait for a while and you should see Galrahn appear. He's the most likely one in here to have all the numbers.

I was under the impression that the USN currently had 10 active CSG's and 10 active ESG's (STOVL carrier equivs)

 

[Galrahn]

Hutch, wait for a while and you should see Galrahn appear. He's the most likely one in here to have all the numbers.

I was under the impression that the USN currently had 10 active CSG's and 10 active ESG's (STOVL carrier equivs)

Hey Hutch,

The number is actually 11 Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and 9 Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESG), although not all are active at any given time.

Specifically with the Nimitz class there are always 10 Carrier Strike Groups available, with one conducting a nuclear refueling that takes about 3 years. The last of the Nimitz class will be available next year and replace the last conventional carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, which will retire. Because the US Navy can only field 10 carriers at any given time (with one in 3 year refueling), the Navy only operates 10 Carrier Air Wings.

Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) typically have 1 Carrier (CVN), 1 Cruiser (CG), between 2-4 Destroyers (DDG), 0-2 Submarines (SSN), and 1-3 assets that are logistical or support.

Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESG) are centered around 1 Amphibious Assault Ship, either a LHA or LHD, a Amphibious Transport Dock ship (LPD), and a Dock Landing Ship (LSD), typically supported by 1 Cruiser (CG), 1-3 Destroyers (DDG) or Frigates (FFG), and 0-2 submarines (SSN).

A typical CSG deployment, say the current Enterprise CSG deployment to the Persian Gulf looks like this:

USS Enterprise (CVN 65)
USS Gettysburg (CG 64)
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51)
USS Stout (DDG 55)
USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98)
USS James E. Williams (DDG 95)
USS Philadelphia (SSN 690)

A typical ESG deployment, say the current Bonhomme Richard CSG deployment to the Persian Gulf looks like this:

USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6)
USS Denver (LPD 9)
USS Rushmore (LSD 47)
USS Chosin (CG 65)
USS Milius (DDG 69)
USS Chung-Hoon (DDG 93)

 

[Galrahn]

Sorry to arrive late to this thread, but there are some questionable statements being made based on a single article where the Navy and Marines are in a pissing contest over variants of the JSF.

First, there will almost certainly be F-35Bs on CVNs at some point. The Sea Base assault plan itself puts 6 squadrons on CVNs as part of the MAG of the MEB, because quite bluntly the Marines don't have room anywhere else for the aircraft in the assault phase.

But that isn't typical, and in fact the USMC and the Navy are moving away from Marine Aviation on CVNs, which is why the LHA(R) is dedicated for aircraft, without a well deck.

The future 2020 CVN Air Wing is currently planned to include 1-3 squadrons of F-35Cs and 1-3 Squadrons of F/A-18E/Fs, plus a single squadron of UCAS-N and a few other unmanned vehicles, 4 E-2Ds, 5 EA-18Gs, 4-6 MH-60Rs, and 4-6 MH-60S.

None of those are expected to be USMC, or F-35B, which will be mainly deployed to LHDs and LHAs.

 

[harryriedl]

The people in support of the F-35C will say the sortie rate is increased by 40% only because it runs out of fuel 40% quicker and needs to refuel sooner...

The people in support of the F-35B will try and say that the sortie rate is higher due to other positive reasons. They may claim that the 40% will be an increase on top of the already maxed out conventional aircraft sortie rate. As far as i know the F-35B operations would cause half of the carrier to become unavailable for conventional aircraft so the sortie rate may go up but aircraft in the air will decrease.

No one would prefer an aircraft that had to refuel every hour but had an extremely high sortie rate.

If an aircraft could stay in the air for twice as long that means that half the amount of sorties are required to have the same number of birds in the air. An aircraft that can stay in the air twice as long will no doubt be able to fly further too, which the F-35C does.

The F-35C will have the greatest endurance out of all the Navy aircraft its sortie rate would then be the lowest. This is a good thing in my opinion.

come on the range isn't that drastic its 400nm for the F35B to 600nm F35C which however you look at isn't 40% difference in range and the F35B can still be used on the invinsabls and 25 years experiences is not to be sniff at. and we invented the STOVL doctrine

 

[harryriedl]

Sorry to arrive late to this thread, but there are some questionable statements being made based on a single article where the Navy and Marines are in a pissing contest over variants of the JSF.

First, there will almost certainly be F-35Bs on CVNs at some point. The Sea Base assault plan itself puts 6 squadrons on CVNs as part of the MAG of the MEB, because quite bluntly the Marines don't have room anywhere else for the aircraft in the assault phase.

But that isn't typical, and in fact the USMC and the Navy are moving away from Marine Aviation on CVNs, which is why the LHA(R) is dedicated for aircraft, without a well deck.

The future 2020 CVN Air Wing is currently planned to include 1-3 squadrons of F-35Cs and 1-3 Squadrons of F/A-18E/Fs, plus a single squadron of UCAS-N and a few other unmanned vehicles, 4 E-2Ds, 5 EA-18Gs, 4-6 MH-60Rs, and 4-6 MH-60S.

None of those are expected to be USMC, or F-35B, which will be mainly deployed to LHDs and LHAs.

sorry for the ignorance but how many air frames is that [GWB says its expected to carry 54 fixed wing and 16 helos http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/george-h-w-bush/]
so the according to the sea power doctrine the USMC are only attached as a needs must basis like in the cold war like Tasman said

 

[Galrahn]

sorry for the ignorance but how many air frames is that

the optimal loadout would be:

44 Strike Fighers (JSF/F/A-18)
4-12 UCAS-N
5 EA-18G
5 E-2D
20 MH-60R/S with many on CSG assets, including CGs, DDGs, LCS, and logistical ships (some assume that means 14 on CVN, I assume it means 10-12)
2 COD (carrier onboard delivery) aircraft

Keep in mind optimal and realistic are two differnet things. For example, EA-6Bs configuration today have been reduced in some cases from 4 to 2, and in some cases F/A-18 squadrons can be as few as 4 aircraft.

To see an example of how things get fudged quickly, check out thelatest reported CAW assignments for comparison.

 

[Tasman]

But that isn't typical, and in fact the USMC and the Navy are moving away from Marine Aviation on CVNs, which is why the LHA(R) is dedicated for aircraft, without a well deck.

The future 2020 CVN Air Wing is currently planned to include 1-3 squadrons of F-35Cs and 1-3 Squadrons of F/A-18E/Fs, plus a single squadron of UCAS-N and a few other unmanned vehicles, 4 E-2Ds, 5 EA-18Gs, 4-6 MH-60Rs, and 4-6 MH-60S.

None of those are expected to be USMC, or F-35B, which will be mainly deployed to LHDs and LHAs.

I am pleased to read your comments about the USMC moving away from regular deployments on the CVNs. The LHA(R) should be a valuable addition that will increase the self sufficiency of the marines in the deployment of their fighter squadrons.

Cheers

 

[Galrahn]

I am pleased to read your comments about the USMC moving away from regular deployments on the CVNs. The LHA(R) should be a valuable addition that will increase the self sufficiency of the marines in the deployment of their fighter squadrons.

The process is slow though, and it will still be awhile before we stop seeing Marine aviation off CVNs.

Marine Aviation is one of those points of contention bubbling underneath the surface, but very little boils over. There is an active community that is trying to gather momentum to advocate taking Marine Aviation back to sea independently, and the LHA(R) is part of that solution (the near term part).

I don't think anyone believes it is the total solution though, even the Navy, who would love to see a way to get USMC aviationto sea while not using CVNs for that purpose.

Cost is the major point of contention though.

 

[10ringr]

Hutch, wait for a while and you should see Galrahn appear. He's the most likely one in here to have all the numbers.

I was under the impression that the USN currently had 10 active CSG's and 10 active ESG's (STOVL carrier equivs)

Yes, he certainly has the numbers! I love talking to you guys about this stuff. It's like therapy! Hutch

 

[10ringr]

Hey Hutch,

The number is actually 11 Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and 9 Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESG), although not all are active at any given time.

Specifically with the Nimitz class there are always 10 Carrier Strike Groups available, with one conducting a nuclear refueling that takes about 3 years. The last of the Nimitz class will be available next year and replace the last conventional carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, which will retire. Because the US Navy can only field 10 carriers at any given time (with one in 3 year refueling), the Navy only operates 10 Carrier Air Wings.

Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) typically have 1 Carrier (CVN), 1 Cruiser (CG), between 2-4 Destroyers (DDG), 0-2 Submarines (SSN), and 1-3 assets that are logistical or support.

Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESG) are centered around 1 Amphibious Assault Ship, either a LHA or LHD, a Amphibious Transport Dock ship (LPD), and a Dock Landing Ship (LSD), typically supported by 1 Cruiser (CG), 1-3 Destroyers (DDG) or Frigates (FFG), and 0-2 submarines (SSN).

A typical CSG deployment, say the current Enterprise CSG deployment to the Persian Gulf looks like this:

USS Enterprise (CVN 65)
USS Gettysburg (CG 64)
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51)
USS Stout (DDG 55)
USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98)
USS James E. Williams (DDG 95)
USS Philadelphia (SSN 690)

A typical ESG deployment, say the current Bonhomme Richard CSG deployment to the Persian Gulf looks like this:

USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6)
USS Denver (LPD 9)
USS Rushmore (LSD 47)
USS Chosin (CG 65)
USS Milius (DDG 69)
USS Chung-Hoon (DDG 93)

I'm glad I asked G! I always think about the Carrier/Carriers we just retire but it's just wishful thinking they'll bring them back like the BB's. I get an emotional attachment to aircraft carriers for some reason and when one get's sent to P.G. or somewhere to die a slow death, I suffer This was great info thank you. Do you have the figures on what our reserve/mothball fleet looks like, i.e. carriers etc.? With our lack of proper ship building we're going to have a tough time projecting power with what we have and even now we're not ratcheting up in sufficient numbers the building of ships/subs that will pull us out of the hole. Thanks Again! Hutch