Should the US Navy supplement with the Rafale?

[StevoJH]

Kilo,

F-35 is STOVL, not VTOL, and the harriers operate using STOVL rather then VTOL as they can't carry much when taking off vertically, and it also uses a lot of fuel.

Fixes have been carried out regarding "melting deck syndrome" and procedures have been modified as well. For the V-22 at least. For the F-35, worst comes to worst you weld some armoured plate over part of the flight deck where they land. However the UK is working on rolling landings where I doubt it would be quite as much a problem, and either way the jet will only be focused on the deck for 30 seconds or so during landing.

 

[Belesari]

Yes they are supposed to be operated STOVL not VTOL far to many people are missing that.

I dont see any reason, should the F35 fail to be to buy Rafale. Super hornets could do the job just as well without the need for a entirely different logistics need or retraining.

To my knowledge both the A and C model f35s work its the B model thats slowing everything down. And the B is what is really needed to replace the hornets. Which cool or not effective or not are death traps to any type of heatseaker.

 

[Marc 1]

Which cool or not effective or not are death traps to any type of heatseaker.

Explain please?

 

[Kilo 2-3]

I do not think that many of the small flat-topped vessels could (safely) have F-35B's land on them. In addition to the heat issue, one does need to remember the weight footprint of the F-35. While it is roughly the same size as the Harrier, it weighs significantly more. This means that any ships which an F-35B would attempt to land on not only needs to have any needed heat-proofing but also have the deck reinforced enough to bear the load of an F-35. I believe this would eliminate the Indian and Thai carriers as well as the RN's Invincible-class.

-Cheers

Hmm.... I didn't consider the weight issue. Do you know what the average carrier/LHD deck is stressed to handle and if it fits within the F-35Bs MTOW? I'm genuinely curious as to what it would be, since it would have an impact on F-35B operations in the future.

Also, would the strength/max load limits on the deck edge lifts (for the carriers which have them) also be an issue? If the elevators on smaller carriers can't handle the F-35 without modification, then that's certainly a concerning factor for some potential F-35B operators.

 

[swerve]

I don't think anyone is planning to operate F-35B on any of the Harrier carriers, except Cavour, which was built with it in mind. Principe de Asturias, Giuseppe Garibaldi, & the Invincible-class are expected to retire with their Harriers, AFAIK. Chakri Naruebet is the smallest of the lot, & never a candidate for F-35B.

Cavour & Juan Carlos 1 have both been built with F-35B in mind, & neither weight nor lift dimensions will be a problem.

Is there an issue with the US LHDs?

 

[StingrayOZ]

There shouldn't be a major issue operating operating from say a Wasp.

But the US is building LHA specifically as F-35B carriers. Most of the operation will off these. US is not being worried about operating 2 or 6 of them. The USMC wants its own carriers. With the new LHA they will get real carrier power.

 

[Mikestro]

Quote:

"The USMC STOVL aircraft must be compatible with and operationally supportable from CVN-68 (NIMITZ), LHA (TARAWA), and LHD (WASP) Class Ships. The UK STOVL aircraft must be compatible with the flight, ramp, and hangar deck layouts of CVS (INVINCIBLE) Class Ships.

The JSF B&SS IPT is also responsible for assisting international partners in incorporating the JSF into their basing options on land and at sea. For Italian partners, this means the JSF will be operating from their current aircraft carrier, the Garibaldi. In the near future, the JSF will be operating from their new carrier, the Andrea Doria"

F-35B Joint Strike Fighter

F-35B weight is 60,000lb max take off. CH-53E max takeoff weight is 73,500 lbs. CV-22 is 57,000lb. All three weigh about 30,000 lbs dry.

If the US LHDs can handle the CH-53E and the CV-22, then a F-35B should not be a problem.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II
V-22 Osprey
CH-53 Sea Stallion / MH-53E Sea Dragon / MH-53J Pave Low III

 

[StevoJH]

For Italian partners, this means the JSF will be operating from their current aircraft carrier, the Garibaldi. In the near future, the JSF will be operating from their new carrier, the Andrea Doria"

And here was me thinking it was called Cavour.

 

[Mikestro]

And here was me thinking it was called Cavour.

It is called the Cavour.

It was going to be the Luigi Einaudi, then Andrea Doria, and now its the Cavour.

 

[Belesari]

Explain please?

Ive never flown one but ive heard from a pilot who did. The seeker warheads on anti air missiles that home in on heat go for the underside of the aircraft or something instead of the rear of the aircraft like on most others this makes em dam dangerous for the pilot. It was a few yrs ago so i cant remember all of it but i think that was the jist if what he said. That and it was fun as hell

 

[swerve]

There shouldn't be a major issue operating operating from say a Wasp.

But the US is building LHA specifically as F-35B carriers.

Only two so far, & it looks as if they may revert to LHDs after them.

The only potential problem I can see with a Wasp is if the heat issue is serious, & I'm sure that's solvable.

 

[swerve]

Quote:

"... For Italian partners, this means the JSF will be operating from their current aircraft carrier, the Garibaldi. In the near future, the JSF will be operating from their new carrier, the Andrea Doria"...

That was already out of date even when the last datable amendment to that article was made, 4 years ago.

The MMI will not bother trying to operate F-35B off Giuseppe Garibaldi. By the time it enters service, GG will be on the way out. Only Cavour will get it.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Only two so far, & it looks as if they may revert to LHDs after them.

The only potential problem I can see with a Wasp is if the heat issue is serious, & I'm sure that's solvable.

I don't see the heat issue as being as serious. The lift fan doesn't produce any heat sucking cold air from above, Which should help with cooling exhaust heat as well. It will be hot, but should not be signficantly hotter than a harrier (I think it will be less of an issue than the harrier).

Most navies would be pretty happy with 2x40000+t of aircraft carriers. It should be enough for the marines given they also get support from the USAF and the USN, two fairly significant airforces.

With those two carriers, they will have real independant CAS for operations. Heck the USMC will be able to operate its own operations without the USN carriers. Thats on top of fairly significant carrier capability in the Wasps.

Americans typically overengineer military things. They can land and launch C-130's off their carriers, if they had to. They design and plan for all sorts of situations regular folk don't have to. F-35B will not be an issue for them.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

I don't see the heat issue as being as serious. The lift fan doesn't produce any heat sucking cold air from above, Which should help with cooling exhaust heat as well. It will be hot, but should not be signficantly hotter than a harrier (I think it will be less of an issue than the harrier).

Most navies would be pretty happy with 2x40000+t of aircraft carriers. It should be enough for the marines given they also get support from the USAF and the USN, two fairly significant airforces.

With those two carriers, they will have real independant CAS for operations. Heck the USMC will be able to operate its own operations without the USN carriers. Thats on top of fairly significant carrier capability in the Wasps.

Americans typically overengineer military things. They can land and launch C-130's off their carriers, if they had to. They design and plan for all sorts of situations regular folk don't have to. F-35B will not be an issue for them.

The rear exhaust will be a problem. If the issue has already appeared in the Osprey, then I'm inclined to believe that the same issue will appear with the more powerful engine used in the F-35B. The Harrier is also a smaller aircraft with a smaller engine, and it seems to me that a comparison between the exhaust temperatures and deck heat issues of the two is not wholly accurate.

I heartily agree with your assessment that the US will be able to make the F-35B work. There's so much at stake with making the F-18 and Harrier successor work, that the US Navy will do everything in its power to fix the issues surrounding it.

 

[Sea Toby]

Not to mention anyone else who buys F-35Bs. Whatever is needed will be bought.... Its cheaper to fix the flight deck to withstand higher temperatures than it will be to cut the engines heat exhausts....

 

[AegisFC]

The rear exhaust will be a problem. If the issue has already appeared in the Osprey, then I'm inclined to believe that the same issue will appear with the more powerful engine used in the F-35B. The Harrier is also a smaller aircraft with a smaller engine, and it seems to me that a comparison between the exhaust temperatures and deck heat issues of the two is not wholly accurate.

I heartily agree with your assessment that the US will be able to make the F-35B work. There's so much at stake with making the F-18 and Harrier successor work, that the US Navy will do everything in its power to fix the issues surrounding it.

There isn't an issue with the Osprey. The USN has thermal pads that can be placed under the engines if the Osprey will be on deck with its engine on at more than an idle for any amount of time more than a few minutes.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

There isn't an issue with the Osprey. The USN has thermal pads that can be placed under the engines if the Osprey will be on deck with its engine on at more than an idle for any amount of time more than a few minutes.

Interesting. In your opinion, is such a solution workable or even needed for the F-35B?

(Now that I consider the issue more seriously, it seems that if the main engine's exhaust is only exposed to the deck for a few seconds, the short-term effects on the deck might not be too serious, although I don't know if that would wholly avert any potential long-term heat damage, be it minor or serious).

 

[bonehead]

the Uk are also now considering Rafale not only is it a proven and in service aircraft, its fully interoperable with US carriers, and with JSF price tag now doubled and inservice date put back another two years the UK cannot afford to wait and if prices continue then the UK will pull out.

several others are also now looking at another option and grippen is coming out as a strong contender not only are all source codes supplied with the aircraft thay are all well under the 80mill mark per aircraft, cheaper to maintain and more cost effective for smaller countries,
some are looking at the F18 super hornet as well just like australia hw ever they have brought the aircraft in a deal with the US as a stop gap to replace the f111 until the JSF is avaliable and they got a good deal as a result. grippen can be navalised, eurofighters have been navalised with eurofighter being offered to indin navy for thier new carrier being built.( not sure if the oz hornets are new build or refuurbished)

currently the UK still want stovl option but the two new carriers were designed so that full deck operations could be built into the ship, and as there is still time before that stage of construction has arrived all options are still open.

 

[Marc 1]

the Uk are also now considering Rafale not only is it a proven and in service aircraft, its fully interoperable with US carriers, and with JSF price tag now doubled and inservice date put back another two years the UK cannot afford to wait and if prices continue then the UK will pull out.

several others are also now looking at another option and grippen is coming out as a strong contender not only are all source codes supplied with the aircraft thay are all well under the 80mill mark per aircraft, cheaper to maintain and more cost effective for smaller countries,
some are looking at the F18 super hornet as well just like australia hw ever they have brought the aircraft in a deal with the US as a stop gap to replace the f111 until the JSF is avaliable and they got a good deal as a result. grippen can be navalised, eurofighters have been navalised with eurofighter being offered to indin navy for thier new carrier being built.( not sure if the oz hornets are new build or refuurbished)

currently the UK still want stovl option but the two new carriers were designed so that full deck operations could be built into the ship, and as there is still time before that stage of construction has arrived all options are still open.

Given that the only part that I have seen finished is the bow bulb, I'm not that worried that the F-35B will be a while before it is in service. The QE class certainly won't be ready for a while yet.

Speaking of cost - the costs involved in converting the QE class to a conventional carrier (catapaults, arrestor gear etc ) plus training crew in the operation of these devices would easily overshaddow any savings to be made by buying a cheaper conventional aircraft surely?

Who will be wearing the cost of navalising the Grippens? That cost alone could mean the Grippens end up costing the same at the JSF.

You talk quite a bit about cost - what you haven't talked about is capability. The JSF will be a generation ahead of the competition you mention. Better to spend a little more now, than find in 15 years time that the 4.5 gen aircraft are not competitive against the T50's (or whatever the new Sukhoi will be known as that has been sold to a country that is potentially an adversary of the UK. That would mean potentially having to replace the Rafael/Grippen/Superbug prematurely with a 5th gen design (possibly JSF evolved) anyway.

BTW, our SuperHornets are new builds.

 

[Bonza]

eurofighters have been navalised with eurofighter being offered to indin navy for thier new carrier being built.( not sure if the oz hornets are new build or refuurbished)

I don't think the Eurofighter has been navalised, nor have I heard about any offers to the Indian Navy. Are you sure you're not thinking of the MMRCA competition?