Crusader2000
Banned Member
FYI
Here's are some RoCAF F-16's and Mirage 2000 operating from roads....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNk-ljy-diA&feature=related]YouTube - Taiwanese RoCAF Fighters Takeoff/Landing on Highway![/ame]
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
FYI
Here's are some RoCAF F-16's and Mirage 2000 operating from roads....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNk-ljy-diA&feature=related]YouTube - Taiwanese RoCAF Fighters Takeoff/Landing on Highway![/ame]
Interesting video - the Taiwanese Blackhawks have a 'low wing' ESSS fitted - any advantage over the 'high wing' version? I'm assuming that the lower position places it further below the rotor wash, but I wouldn't have thought that was a significant difference - perhaps its to improve access?
Anyone got any clues on this?
Anyone got any clues on this?
There has been speculation that the UK government is considering procuring the F-35C rather than the B variant. Now, I know that the general media have completely missinterpreted this as a certainty and I am aware that this is not the case.
However, it would be interesting if the government is considering the C variant more seriously than before. The main benefits would of course be greater range and payload capability. My concern is that all future weapon development will have to be designed with the F-35s internal bays in mind and with the B variant, options will be more limited and this will preclude certain abilities. For example, if the UK wished to produce a missile with similar range to the Storm Shadow, that must fit internally into the F-35, it would be far easier to achieve with the C model. Also, if an international collaboration to develop a missile comes about, then the UK will be left in the dust because other nations will have A and C models and the UMSC will likely only be concerned with integrating CAS weaponry. This could well be the case with the US-Norweigan NSM missile, which we will hopefully see give birth to a land attack variant.
While some see the requirement for catapults to be expensive, it does bring about other benefits. Most importantly, the ability to use the E-2D. It would seem unwise to deploy the two most expensive and capable carriers the UK has ever seen and pair it with a substandard rotary-borne AWACS ability. Again, catapults would allow for much less restricted options for the future. For example, long range UCAVs etc.
My question is, how neccesary is the STOVL ability? Have the UK and US used Harriers recently in situations that precluded the use of other conventional fighters and if so, how long was this period. This question is not rhetorical by the way.
However, it would be interesting if the government is considering the C variant more seriously than before. The main benefits would of course be greater range and payload capability. My concern is that all future weapon development will have to be designed with the F-35s internal bays in mind and with the B variant, options will be more limited and this will preclude certain abilities. For example, if the UK wished to produce a missile with similar range to the Storm Shadow, that must fit internally into the F-35, it would be far easier to achieve with the C model. Also, if an international collaboration to develop a missile comes about, then the UK will be left in the dust because other nations will have A and C models and the UMSC will likely only be concerned with integrating CAS weaponry. This could well be the case with the US-Norweigan NSM missile, which we will hopefully see give birth to a land attack variant.
While some see the requirement for catapults to be expensive, it does bring about other benefits. Most importantly, the ability to use the E-2D. It would seem unwise to deploy the two most expensive and capable carriers the UK has ever seen and pair it with a substandard rotary-borne AWACS ability. Again, catapults would allow for much less restricted options for the future. For example, long range UCAVs etc.
My question is, how neccesary is the STOVL ability? Have the UK and US used Harriers recently in situations that precluded the use of other conventional fighters and if so, how long was this period. This question is not rhetorical by the way.
Personally I don't think it would be a bad move. The USMC only wants the B to operate off LHDs & LHAs .Plus thy always have support from a carrier of necessary. The UK has there LPH but thy could always pick up a half dozen B to operate off that. The extended range clean is a plus.For the ground attack, returning with munitions may pose a problem at least external loads. That is a selling point for the B . I'm almost positive it can land with full or near full combat load.
Putting the Storm Shadow in the weapons bay maybe asking a lot.
I think Italy is also getting the B model but the US Navy will be the sole user of the C variant . If the UK does go with the C variant thy could operate the X-47 UCAS when it come on line.
In air to ground operation not being able to return with external stores would be the only problem.We'll have to see about air frame longevity of the C compared to the B also.
Putting the Storm Shadow in the weapons bay maybe asking a lot.
I think Italy is also getting the B model but the US Navy will be the sole user of the C variant . If the UK does go with the C variant thy could operate the X-47 UCAS when it come on line. In air to ground operation not being able to return with external stores would be the only problem.We'll have to see about air frame longevity of the C compared to the B also.
It wouldn't make logistical or operational sense to operate only half a dozen F-35B, & the LPH (HMS Ocean) is not built for F-35B operations. I'm not sure if her lifts could take it, & her deck would need rebuilding at the bow. Hardly worth it for a ship will be middle-aged when the first F-35B is delivered, & has other jobs to do.
Pingu:
The UKs use of Harriers in the Falklands was mostly (assuming CTOL carriers) within the parameters of catapult operations, but included some operations in sea states where catapult operations would have been stopped, & some marginal actions (e.g. shipping Harriers out in a freighter with a landing pad, from which they flew over to the carriers) which required their particular abilities. Sortie rates from the carriers were reported to be higher than could have been sustained with catapult launch.
The USMC will not be the only other F-35B customer. Italy is planning to buy F-35B for both the navy & the air force, as well as air force F-35A, & Spain is clearly intending (they've built a ship designed around it!) to buy F-35B. Italy apparently intends to form something similar to the JFH for its F-35B, with air force aircraft deploying to Cavour (& if another carrier is bought to replace GG, that).
STOVL does have advantages over catapults. Sortie rates, operations in heavy seas, quicker, easier & hence cheaper pilot conversion . . . You can't operate a joint force of land-based & carrier-based F-35C, for example, because of pilot carrier qualification.
@ swerve I never said operating a half dozen was a good idea I remember reading some ware the HMS Ocean was capable of operating VTOL air craft. I just looked again my mistake. Quick question Theres no certification for pilots to land on a moving ship? I find that odd? but not impossible.
I remember reading some ware the HMS Ocean was capable of operating VTOL air craft. I just looked again my mistake. Quick question Theres no certification for pilots to land on a moving ship? I find that odd? but not impossible.I didn't say no carrier qualification is needed, I said it's quicker & easier for STOVL aircraft. Assuming you can already do vertical landings, much quicker, but you still need to qualify.
I just misunderstood you in the joint force example. Thanks
How do the Marines manage to field pilots that can operate from land as well as carriers. Saying you cannot operate a joint force of land and carrier based aircraft is clearly wrong. Lets not make carrier qualifications out to be more than it needs to be. How do the Marines rotate their fixed wing Hornet squadrons out to sea on a regular basis? Do you mean to tel me that once they become carrier qualified they can no longer perform air superiority or CAS missions?
Do you really think the sortie rates are higher? I don't think so with four catapults and neither does the Navy. At any rate with a STOVL force you need faster sortie rates due to relative lack of fuel.
Do I really need to go out an find the you tube videos of catapult launches and traps in heavy seas? How did the USN manage to operate in the north Atlantic in winter?
There are reasons other Navies use STOVL, but they are not for reasons of providing more capability. Generally you have less range, less payload and less bring back with STOVL. On the other hand they allow you to use a smaller carrier with all the attendant cost reductions. The fact is it is cheaper to use STOVL, not better.
Stop setting up straw men. Nobody has made those claims. What I have said is that STOVL carrier qualification is much quicker & easier. That's it. The whole extent of the claim. None of the nonsense you spout above. The bolded sentence, in particular - where did that foolishness come from?
The RN, RAF & USMC agree that STOVL conversion is easier, BTW. Do you think you know better?
Nobody has said that overall sortie rates are necessarily higher for a diddy little Harrier-carrier than for a CVN 5 times its tonnage (more straw men), but sortie rates in proportion to numbers of aircraft go up.
Ditto for heavy weather. Nobody has said that conventional carriers can't operate in heavy weather, only that STOVL can operate in heavier weather. Can't you understand the difference?
BTW, the USMC manages to operate in both land-based & carrier-based modes only by having far greater resources available for carrier training than any other navy can afford. The RN or MN wouldn't have much carrier time left over for deployments if it tried to do the same.
Last edited:
Simply put, the Nimitz class aircraft carriers have four catapults which can sustain a large number of sorties. Other navies catapult aircraft carriers don't have four catapults, which reduces the sortie rate considerably. Without four catapults, the other navies get better sortie rates with their smaller carriers using ski jumps....
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
It seems sortie and package generation rates CATOBAR is superior if you have a large enough carrier. For a pocket carrier i would think STOVL would be able to generate higher sortie rates, HMAS Melbourne's single cat was awfully slow. However for a QE2 sized vessel and a single ski jump, 3x cats would be significantly superior in terms of sortie and package generation rates i would think.
Personally i think the F-35C and CATOBAR would be significantly superior to the 'B and STOVL for the RN, but not for the RAF. The cost savings with a "joint force harrier" concept are too tempting it seems.
Personally i think the F-35C and CATOBAR would be significantly superior to the 'B and STOVL for the RN, but not for the RAF. The cost savings with a "joint force harrier" concept are too tempting it seems.
I am in two minds over which variant is best. I agree very much that the cost savings as well as the easy transition from JFH are strong pluses for the B option. Sortee rate would greater with the B variant and training would be considerably easier to achieve combined with a lower cost carrier and lower operating costs.
However, I also argue that spending the extra time and money may well be worthwhile due to the potentially much greater capability of the C variant. Duffy, I was not suggesting fitting the Storm Shadow internally within the B variant as it is simply too large for all variants.
To get have a weapon with considerable range however, is likely to be such a struggle for even conventional variants, that the B variant will be simply ruled out. I am aware that there was once an intended joint UK/US project called RATLIRS, which intended to develop a missile to fit internally within the F-35 and F-22, I have never been able to find any more information about that project and I assume it died off a while back. My point is however, that no matter what, the B variant will always be tricky for weapons integration and every UK weapon conceived will have to bear this restriction in mind and perhaps the UK will have to go it alone to develop niche weapons, which will be costly.
The USMC's dedicated air arm interests me: I feel it would make far more sense in terms of uncompromised performance and efficiency etc to have the USMC to rely soley on the US Navy for strike fighter support at least but that's a different conversation alltogether
The UK is lucky in this regard in that it's far smaller services make interoperability far easier to achieve. If the B variant is chosen, then I feel it would make sense to ask:why not procure 3 smaller carriers? I worry whether having only 2 carriers will cause a strain on commitments as there is only so many places 2 carriers can be at once, i.e. two and even less if one is undergoing an overhaul. This would reap the full benefits of the B variant.
However, I also argue that spending the extra time and money may well be worthwhile due to the potentially much greater capability of the C variant. Duffy, I was not suggesting fitting the Storm Shadow internally within the B variant as it is simply too large for all variants.
To get have a weapon with considerable range however, is likely to be such a struggle for even conventional variants, that the B variant will be simply ruled out. I am aware that there was once an intended joint UK/US project called RATLIRS, which intended to develop a missile to fit internally within the F-35 and F-22, I have never been able to find any more information about that project and I assume it died off a while back. My point is however, that no matter what, the B variant will always be tricky for weapons integration and every UK weapon conceived will have to bear this restriction in mind and perhaps the UK will have to go it alone to develop niche weapons, which will be costly.
The USMC's dedicated air arm interests me: I feel it would make far more sense in terms of uncompromised performance and efficiency etc to have the USMC to rely soley on the US Navy for strike fighter support at least but that's a different conversation alltogether
The UK is lucky in this regard in that it's far smaller services make interoperability far easier to achieve. If the B variant is chosen, then I feel it would make sense to ask:why not procure 3 smaller carriers? I worry whether having only 2 carriers will cause a strain on commitments as there is only so many places 2 carriers can be at once, i.e. two and even less if one is undergoing an overhaul. This would reap the full benefits of the B variant.
Two large carriers was sold to the Treasury as costing no more than three small carriers, & was desired by the RN because it can get far more capacity that way. To operate F-35B effectively, something significantly larger than Invincible was needed, e.g. Cavour - and we weren't ever going to get three of them. Political & Treasury decision: three too-small carriers, or two bigger ones. A no-brainer for the RN.
Once the decision to build two bigger carriers was taken, the RN successfully argued for "bigger" to mean "a lot bigger" (each carrier will be about the tonnage of all three Invincibles combined), using calculations of sortie rates, manning levels, costs, etc. As they say, "steel is cheap & air is free". The price per ton goes down as the size goes up. Neither building nor operating cost is directly proportional to size, & what we're getting has potential for internal growth, e.g. more power, catapults, etc.
Trying to shoe-horn as much as possible into the smallest carrier that can do the job results in Charles de Gaulle. From what I hear, the MN uses her as proof that PA2 has to be bigger.
Also the sortie rate is more with STOVL 110 a day compared with 130 of a Nimitz and 90 odd of a Charles De Gaulle. Their are definitely a sortie advantage for STOVL even up to a large carrier size (of course i don't know how many sorties you could get out of Nimitz if it armed with STOVL F35B compared with the cat aircraft)
With the Electromagnetic cats the sortie rate may match or exceed the STOVL. Especially if the cat can sense the take off weight with resistance with out human input. You could literally hook-em and shoot-em.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Indeed, not to mention the additional type of platforms you can use.
that compared with lining them up and launching no hooking or anything. Yes the variety of platforms but STOVL isn't quite the cheap alternative to CATOBAR it once was it has become more competitive in certain aspects. Can't how EMALS would be quicker due to the checks before launch.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8nTwDT4Z_A]YouTube - Sea Harrier Launch[/ame]
Harriers off a mini CVS
compared with a CATOBAR launch off a CVN
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcUmoLu6psw&feature=related]YouTube - FA-18 carrier take-off[/ame]
the checks take a significant amount of time. Though you can do it for more than one plane at a time it more time consuming than a STOVL launch
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I think the in the CATOBAR vs STOVL debate sortie rates can be misleading, that parameter is important but it only tells half the story, no platform ever fights alone. The package is key and with only 1 platform running down a ski ramp at a time a STOVL carrier's package generation rate will almost undoubtedly be inferior to a 3 or 4 cat CATOBAR carrier, even if the daily sortie rate is higher. The first platform launched will have to sit around and wait for the rest of the package to get airborne and up to altitude. That has a fuel penalty and different elements of the package will be at different fuel states (not ideal), which increases pressure on your tanker fleet (which is only a buddy system on STOVL anyway). The CATOBAR system can launch 3 or 4 platforms simultaneously, less waiting around and comparable fuel states across elements of the package.
In this respect I still think CATOBAR is a superior system.
In this respect I still think CATOBAR is a superior system.
- Status