intergration of F35B on US CVN's [Archive]

View Full Version : intergration of F35B on US CVN's

harryriedl

August 1st, 2007, 12:20 PM

AegisFC

August 1st, 2007, 01:12 PM

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/04/defense_stovl_jsf_070430m/

Navy argues against Marine variant of JSF

Corps defends JFF STOVL against assertions outlined in document
By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday May 1, 2007 13:58:00 EDT

Despite public support by Pentagon and Navy leaders for the short-take-off/vertical-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, debates about the planned acquisition and operation of the F-35B continue behind the scenes — worrying Marine Corps officials and potential foreign customers who are counting on the versatile aircraft.

Navy officials have set no public deadline to settle JSF procurement plans, but a current Navy briefing document provides a rare window on the debate. It argues that the STOVL version should not fly as part of a carrier air wing.

The JSF program is slated to produce three variants: the F-35A, a conventional takeoff version; the F-35C, strengthened for carrier takeoffs and landings, and the F-35B, fitted with a liftfan that allows it to perform the crucial Marine missions of operating from amphibious ships and primitive bases in forward areas.

The plane’s biggest customers — the Navy and Air Force — are more enthusiastic about the higher-performance F-35A and C versions. But the five-year-old practice of including a Marine fighter squadron with most carrier air wings means putting the F-35B, with its slightly different shape and maintenance requirements, aboard the carriers.

In the briefing document, Navy tactical-aviation planners argue that the Marines should drop the F-35B in favor of the F-35C, at least for carrier-based units. They cite the differing operating characteristics of the STOVL aircraft and note the C’s superiority in range and weapons load.

“STOVL sub-optimizes CVW [carrier air wing] operations and capabilities,” Navy planners assert in the document, a copy of which was obtained by Defense News. “STOVL, while capable of CVN operations, should not be integrated into the CVW as part of a standard construct.”

Shopping plans
Officials in the Navy Department, which includes the Navy and Marine Corps, are trying to decide how many of each variant to buy. The Navy plans to buy a total of 680: 360 F-35Cs and 320 F-35Bs, although the Marines have a requirement for 420 JSFs.

Early-production F-35As are already five months into flight tests, while the first F-35B is scheduled to take to the air in 2008, and the F-35C in 2009.

In the document, Navy planners say the STOVL aircraft will have “thermal, pressure and acoustic effects more dramatic than models predict” and refer to issues certifying Marine V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft for shipboard operations. Flight deck movement will be restricted by blast from the aircraft, the planners wrote, and launching and recovering each STOVL F-35 will add two minutes to the carrier’s flight cycles.

Marine planners are digging in against these assertions, claiming built-in biases by Navy aviators against STOVL operations. They also say the briefing misuses and mischaracterizes numerous facts.

In the briefing, the Navy aviation planners list more than a dozen ways the F-35B short-takeoff-and-landing version will “sub-optimize” aircraft-carrier operations. Among other things, they say the F-35B will:

* Offer poorer capability and sustainability at a higher price than the carrier-optimized F-35C. The Marines say the STOVL aircraft outperforms the C model in all kinds of missions except carrier-based ones.

* Reduce flexibility in carrier-deck operations. Marines: That won’t be known until flight tests begin.

* Carry only 70 percent as much fuel as the F-35C. Marines: That advantage will be reduced by the F-35C’s heavier weight, by the -B’s ability to fly from forward bases, and by the fact that the STOVL version doesn’t need to carry backup fuel in case it can’t trap aboard a carrier.

* Not carry a 2,000-pound bomb in its internal bomb bay. Marines: The F-35B can carry one externally, and weapon is needed for only 15 percent of missions anyway.

* Lack an internally carried, stand-off weapon that can hit enemy radar. Marines: That could be remedied with the under-development Small Diameter Bomb.

* Lack an internally carried, stand-off weapon that can hit enemy ships. Marines: It carriers the Joint Stand-Off Weapon externally.

The use of Marine fighter squadrons in Navy carrier wings is mandated under the Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Air Integration plan, approved in 2004. By including Marine strike fighters in regular carrier deployment, each service was able to reduce the number of squadrons and aircraft. The TacAir plan allowed planners to cut the total procurement of F-35s and F/A-18 Super Hornets by nearly 500 aircraft, saving — according to the Navy in 2004 — about $35 billion.

The Marines, committed to an “all-STOVL force,” intend to replace the current crop of AV-8B Harrier jumpjets and F/A-18 Hornets with the F-35B. Replacement of the Harrier with the JSF is not at issue. Rather, the problem facing Navy planners is how to manage the STOVL F-35Bs in a wing otherwise composed of F-35Cs, F/A-18E and -F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers.

The Navy is committed throughout its aviation community to “necking down” the number of different types of aircraft to a handful of basic models. Last year, the strike fighter community finished their switch from the F-14 Tomcat to an all-F/A-18 force. Several observers note that introducing the F-35 into the -18 mix could strike Navy planners as counter-productive, and figuring how to use yet another version of the F-35 would only compound perceived problems.

That notion struck one aviation analyst as silly.

“I’ve never seen any definitive analysis that says a STOVL aircraft can’t be successfully integrated into a carrier wing,” he said. “I think what you have is this sort of culture in the Navy that says we just don’t do it that way. I’m not convinced [STOVL aircraft] can’t work with air wings.”

At the other end of the cultural debate, the Marines argue they didn’t join up to fly from carriers.

“The surface story of blue and green working together is great,” said Dakota Wood, a former Marine officer who is now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “But the reality is that [in a carrier wing] you’re on Navy time, and the Marine Corps ground commander is saying, where is my tac air?”

The comparisons of the two JSF versions also struck Wood as “an unfair comparison. Each version has been optimized for the environment in which it’s to be employed.”

“The legitimate argument,” he said, “is how you’re going to use the airplane.”

Ships Riding on JSF
And while the Navy and Marine Corps continue their debate over the JSF, at least two members of the 11-nation JSF partnership have a far deeper interest in the survival of the STOVL plane.

Britain is making an enormous investment — $7.7 billion in ship construction costs alone — in building two 65,000-metric-ton aircraft carriers intended to operate the F-35B. Later this year, Italy expects to commission the 27,000-metric-ton carrier Cavour, specifically intended to operate JSFs as a replacement for its aging carrier-capable AV-8B Harriers.

The planned 131-aircraft Italian JSF order — 22 STOVLs and 109 conventional aircraft for the Air Force — is strictly linked to the need to replace the Harriers, Italian Defense Undersecretary Lorenzo Forcieri said Jan. 16.

The British are even more dependent on the F-35B, as they have chosen to build their two carriers without the steam catapults planned for the French Navy’s similar PA2 ship.

Evidence of British concern for the health of the F-35B program was published by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) April 27. MoD said it “remained fully committed to the carrier program” but added, “The department continues to closely monitor the U.S. STOVL requirements and the performance of the STOVL variant.”

With no other STOVL strike fighter in development, loss of the F-35B would mean British planners could choose to install catapults — early design work on the ships accounted for this possibility — and decide between the French Rafale, F/A-18 or another competitor.

British support for the F-35B is seen by many observers as a key element in the survival of the variant in last year’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Although the QDR was completed over a year ago, the British carrier program remains a major ingredient in the STOVL program.

A British government official said Pentagon officials “periodically seek updates from the British government on the status of the carrier program — a move that some have suggested has less to do with Britain’s interest in building the ships than whether London is wavering on the raison d’être for the JSF STOVL program.”

Debate goes on
Inside the Pentagon, Navy and Marine Corps planners continue to debate the issue, which soon could move to Capitol Hill. Sources close to service leaders Adm. Mike Mullen of the Navy and Gen. James Conway of the Marine Corps say both officers are seeking to avoid public disagreement on the JSF program and other issues and are working to find common ground.

“This is a 20-year discussion,” said an industry analyst. “It’s not going to be over just because the Navy did a briefing.”

If Rumsfield didn't force the Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Air Integration plan on the Navy and Marines this wouldn't be an issue.

FiredForEffect

August 1st, 2007, 02:26 PM

Super Nimrod

August 1st, 2007, 05:26 PM

Exactly, Flying something different makes them more independant of the Navy.

StingrayOZ

August 2nd, 2007, 02:11 AM

The UK's commitment to the CVF basically green lights the F-35B.

UK, Italy are definately going to operate it, with Spain (maybe 16) and Australia (maybe as high as 20) highly likely just really a question of when and how many.

The F-35B is a extremely capable plane, far more capable than the Harrier and only a few % less capable than the F-35A and C. It will enable navies with smaller carriers (and the USMC) to operate a plane with very simular capabilities to a large CATOBAR carrier. Stealthy, awesome flight controls and electric tricks, internal payload, fantastic strike capability.

B's are a much more flexable plane, but your trade ultimate performance for being a all rounder. But in the type of Marine and small navy situations, being a all rounder is far *FAR* more important than being very good at say A2A.

Its different strokes for different folks. F-35C's for the navy, and F-35B's for the USMC.

Tasman

August 2nd, 2007, 03:20 AM

"If Rumsfield didn't force the Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Air Integration plan on the Navy and Marines this wouldn't be an issue."

Agreed. There is a reason the USMC has organic air assets. And that reason is not to just be another carrier-based asset.

My main concern is that an over dependence on USMC squadrons to round out the carrier air wings could result in them being 'tied' to their parent carrier and therefore unavailable to support marines ashore. The idea of occasional marine corps fighter deployments to hone skills in carrier landings/take offs that would be necessary if USMC squadrons are going to deploy by carrier to forward areas, is reasonable. But making marine squadrons part of the permanent air wing must surely reduce their flexibility.

Cheers

Tasman

August 2nd, 2007, 03:49 AM

The UK's commitment to the CVF basically green lights the F-35B.

UK, Italy are definately going to operate it, with Spain (maybe 16) and Australia (maybe as high as 20) highly likely just really a question of when and how many.

I hope you are right about the possibility of Australia getting F-35Bs. However, much as I would love to see an Australian purchase to provide a combat aircraft capable of operating from the LHDs I don't think we can say that it is 'highly likely'. It doesn't appear to be on the RAAF's current wish list and the RAN and Army will need to present a strong and united case to have a chance of getting it included in the Australian F-35 order. The army may well prefer to concentrate on getting the extra armed recce and transport helos it needs and may consider that an expanded force of Tigers would provide all the close air support necessary. If it is considered that the LHDs or forces deployed from them are likely to operate in areas where air or missile attack is a possibility and US or land based RAAF aircraft would be unable to provide adequate cover, the case for the F-35B would be improved.

At this stage I believe that the navy will be happy just to get the LHDs into service but I will be surprised and disappointed if it does not present a strong case for the F-35B in the next few years.

I agree with you, however, that Spain will almost certainly join the USMC, the UK and Italy, in operating the F-35B.

Re integration of the F-35B version into USN CVNs I think the USMC will prefer to maintain their independence and fly them from the LHDs and LHAs. I just can't see much benefit in them operating from the big deck carriers. The only time I would put them on a CVN would be a temporary deployment whilst being ferried to a forward area. But with the large number of LHD/LHA type units in the USN I can't imagine a huge demand for this.

Cheers

riksavage

August 2nd, 2007, 04:30 AM

F35B’s bring so much to the table for smaller navies, particularly in coalition operations. The recent example of US Harriers operating off an RN carrier is a prime example of what we can expect to see in the future with the F35B. I can visualise Spanish and Italian F35B’s operating off the new UK carriers and visa-versa with UK F35B's operating from the new Italian carrier. Instead of NATO ships operating together in the Gulf we will see F35B capable vessels of one nation hosting aircraft and pilots from another.

harryriedl

August 2nd, 2007, 06:04 AM

I hope you are right about the possibility of Australia getting F-35Bs. However, much as I would love to see an Australian purchase to provide a combat aircraft capable of operating from the LHDs I don't think we can say that it is 'highly likely'. It doesn't appear to be on the RAAF's current wish list and the RAN and Army will need to present a strong and united case to have a chance of getting it included in the Australian F-35 order. The army may well prefer to concentrate on getting the extra armed recce and transport helos it needs and may consider that an expanded force of Tigers would provide all the close air support necessary. If it is considered that the LHDs or forces deployed from them are likely to operate in areas where air or missile attack is a possibility and US or land based RAAF aircraft would be unable to provide adequate cover, the case for the F-35B would be improved.

At this stage I believe that the navy will be happy just to get the LHDs into service but I will be surprised and disappointed if it does not present a strong case for the F-35B in the next few years.

I agree with you, however, that Spain will almost certainly join the USMC, the UK and Italy, in operating the F-35B.

Re integration of the F-35B version into USN CVNs I think the USMC will prefer to maintain their independence and fly them from the LHDs and LHAs. I just can't see much benefit in them operating from the big deck carriers. The only time I would put them on a CVN would be a temporary deployment whilst being ferried to a forward area. But with the large number of LHD/LHA type units in the USN I can't imagine a huge demand for this.

Cheers
thanks for all the views on the integration of F35B. but that comment that the marines will want to put their hornet squadrons [which will transition to the F35B] on to the LHD the LHD seem to have enough trouble oprateing AV-8 and carrying the expeditionary force as well as the tac air and their will have to be some squadrons still based on CVN however little the USN and the USMC like the system. despite the numbers of LHD the marines still don't have a proper carrier so they are always relent on the super carriers

the USN need the marine air wings because they lack numbers and are need to round off the CVN air wings

and the marine corps need the USN CVN because they lack sutibul ships this state should be improved the LHD[r] the 50,000 tons replacement for the tarwra class that should create a sutibul platform the F35B but the marines are buying huge amounts of F35B

Tasman

August 2nd, 2007, 06:35 AM

thanks for all the views on the integration of F35B. but that comment that the marines will want to put their hornet squadrons [which will transition to the F35B] on to the LHD the LHD seem to have enough trouble oprateing AV-8 and carrying the expeditionary force as well as the tac air and their will have to be some squadrons still based on CVN however little the USN and the USMC like the system. despite the numbers of LHD the marines still don't have a proper carrier so they are always relent on the super carriers

the USN need the marine air wings because they lack numbers and are need to round off the CVN air wings

and the marine corps need the USN CVN because they lack sutibul ships this state should be improved the LHD[r] the 50,000 tons replacement for the tarwra class that should create a sutibul platform the F35B but the marines are buying huge amounts of F35B

I did not say that the Marines will want to put their Hornet squadrons on the LHDs or LHAs. In fact I didn't mention the Hornet at all. The Hornet can't operate at sea from anything other than a big deck carrier equipped with catapults and arrester wires. I said that I believe the Marines would prefer to operate the F-35Bs , a VSTOL aircraft, from these ships (in the same way they operate the Harriers now). Whilst it is true that the USN needs the USMC squadrons (Hornets transitioning to F-35s) to round out their carrier air wings this is only because the number of USN fighter squadrons has been cut back as a cost cutting measure. My argument is that it would be far better if the navy had enough F-35C and SH squadrons to fully man the CVNs and that the USMC squadrons should only embark on these ships for specific missions in support of marines deployed ashore. I qualified this by saying that I support the practice of a couple of USMC squadrons embarking on the big carriers to develop the skills needed to operate from these ships. This was the previous practice.

Cheers

harryriedl

August 2nd, 2007, 01:35 PM

I did not say that the Marines will want to put their Hornet squadrons on the LHDs or LHAs. In fact I didn't mention the Hornet at all. The Hornet can't operate at sea from anything other than a big deck carrier equipped with catapults and arrester wires. I said that I believe the Marines would prefer to operate the F-35Bs , a VSTOL aircraft, from these ships (in the same way they operate the Harriers now). Whilst it is true that the USN needs the USMC squadrons (Hornets transitioning to F-35s) to round out their carrier air wings this is only because the number of USN fighter squadrons has been cut back as a cost cutting measure. My argument is that it would be far better if the navy had enough F-35C and SH squadrons to fully man the CVNs and that the USMC squadrons should only embark on these ships for specific missions in support of marines deployed ashore. I qualified this by saying that I support the practice of a couple of USMC squadrons embarking on the big carriers to develop the skills needed to operate from these ships. This was the previous practice.

Cheers

do you mean during the cold war days when their were plenty of aircraft.
and use the marine air power which would be attached to the USN air wings on the CVN when marines were deployed with the CVN's on operations:confused: .

shame all the old forestalls and midways are long gone they could be very handy for the marines

Tasman

August 2nd, 2007, 05:38 PM

do you mean during the cold war days when their were plenty of aircraft.
and use the marine air power which would be attached to the USN air wings on the CVN when marines were deployed with the CVN's on operations:confused: .

shame all the old forestalls and midways are long gone they could be very handy for the marines

Before the present practice of requiring the Marines to provide one of the 4 fighter/strike squadrons embarked on each CVN the navy provided the entire carrier air wing. The Forrestals used to deploy with 2 fighter, 2 (sometimes 3) light attack and 1 heavy attack squadron as its standard air combat component (plus a full range of ASW, AEW, EW, recce, refuelling and rescue aircraft and helos). The total air wing could exceed 90 aircraft. The USMC fighter and attack squadrons did not permanently deploy on the carriers but some squadrons rotated to make up for a shortfall in the number of navy squadrons or to increase the airgroup in surge situations. This also gave the marines valuable experience in operating from carriers. Marine squadrons could also be ferried in a carrier to get to an operational area. Other contingency possibilities for the marines would have included use of the training carrier to embark marine squadrons in an emergency but usually the USMC squadrons were shore based. The USMC would, no doubt, have loved having a CV or CVN assigned to it. However, I am unaware of this ever happening although, IIRC, there was discussion in the early 1980s about the possibility of the Essex class carrier Oriskany being re-activated from reserve to support marine operations.

Before the advent of jet aircraft the marines provided an alternative airgroup for the small escort carriers. During the Korean War several escort carriers landed their navy ASW aircraft and embarked a marine fighter squadron to provide close air support for troops ashore. Unfortunately the small carriers were unable to operate jets and it was not until the Harrier came along that the marines were able to again regularly deploy fixed wing aircraft from their 'own' dedicated ships, the LPHs, LHAs and LHDs. Other naval fighters, like the FA-18 Hornet were usually shore based although some would be based aboard a CV/CVN as mentioned above.

The current practice of having the marines provide a quarter of the fighters aboard each carrier enabled the navy to drastically reduce the number of fighter squadrons. Economically this makes sense but it would also make it more risky to detach squadrons to support marines ashore as it would leave the carriers with a reduced fighter complement. It may be, however, that studies of likely scenarios have indicated that this is an acceptable position.

I agree that it is a pity that one or more of the older carriers has not been retained for possible use by the USMC but even the USN has limitations re its budget and manning levels.

Cheers

alexsa

August 2nd, 2007, 07:53 PM

The UK's commitment to the CVF basically green lights the F-35B.

UK, Italy are definately going to operate it, with Spain (maybe 16) and Australia (maybe as high as 20) highly likely just really a question of when and how many.

.

I hope you are right, but, what is you source for the suggestion that Australia may get up to 20? At best I understand there have been mutterings around the edges but nothing substancial from defence in regards to the F-35B. Current announcements seem to indicate the entire purchase is still based around the F-35A.

StingrayOZ

August 3rd, 2007, 02:33 AM

Yes, there has been no offical announcement about Australia purchasing the F-35B. It is however very commited to the F-35 program, it *DOES* want regional servicing to be based here, it will have two of the most capable small F-35 carriers going (bar the Cavour which is designed as a dedicated carrier). It does want a blue water capable navy, with the strength to operate independantly of the USN and the RN.

Spain hasn't even commited to the F-35 program. Spain will no doubt wait it out and see. Italy herself is not sure how many F-35B's she will get either. Britain threatend to pull out of the project entirely! Australia is in a simular state regarding F-35B purchases as any other country. Even the USMC isn't sure how it will pan out.

I would say there are certainly signs Australia is heading towards the F-35B route. For example the origional tender for the Canberra Class from Natavia had the skijump removed. Several illistrations, a large model was made. However it is now back on the ship and the tender.

What would Australia have to benift from announcing F-35B purchase 10 years before likely delivery date? Nothing, the media/opposition would jump on every F-35B delay or compare F-35A and F-35B in Telegraph fold out sections on how the government is buying an inferior plane for greater cost. APA would pipe up all over it. It would be far smarter to have the LHD's undergoing trials, F-35B's already a known quanity in other navies and then announce the highly successful purchase of the F-35B.

Even better, perform several proving exercises with US and RN forces including F-35B's, and study what the optimal number would be to operate from the LHD. Or from forward bases around the pacific or PNG.

Australia may purchase from existing USN/USMC orders much like the Superhornet deal if all parties agree.

Nothing is in concrete, but I would say its just a matter of say 2015 or 2020.

I also think the USMC should concider beefing up its LHD fixed wing capabilities with say a skijump. The larger size of the new LHD's should go some way to mitigating the additional burdens of F-35B over the harrier (greater weight, size, etc).

Tasman

August 3rd, 2007, 06:13 AM

I would say there are certainly signs Australia is heading towards the F-35B route. For example the origional tender for the Canberra Class from Natavia had the skijump removed. Several illistrations, a large model was made. However it is now back on the ship and the tender.

The inclusion of the ski jump certainly increases Australia's future options and, IMO, improves the chance of the F-35B being acquired . It means that the LHDs will be able to:
1. Operate larger UAVs more easily,
2. Cross deck USMC or RN Harriers or (later) F-35Bs, and
3. Operate Australian F-35Bs (drawn from an RAAF, RAN or Joint RAN/RAAF squadron).

What would Australia have to benift from announcing F-35B purchase 10 years before likely delivery date? Nothing, the media/opposition would jump on every F-35B delay or compare F-35A and F-35B in Telegraph fold out sections on how the government is buying an inferior plane for greater cost. APA would pipe up all over it. It would be far smarter to have the LHD's undergoing trials, F-35B's already a known quanity in other navies and then announce the highly successful purchase of the F-35B.

Even better, perform several proving exercises with US and RN forces including F-35B's, and study what the optimal number would be to operate from the LHD. Or from forward bases around the pacific or PNG.

I agree completely with the above comments. The last thing the navy needs is to stir up the old 'aircraft carrier' debate, especially going into a new election. If there is a change of government it needs to be able to make a case to a new government that has not backed itself into a corner by declaring pre-election opposition to Australia getting a new aircraft carrier. That is what happened in 1982 which resulted in cancellation of plans to replace the old carrier Melbourne.

I believe it is highly likely that US or UK F-35Bs will operate from the decks of the Australian LHDs. The success of recent Australian army helo operations from the USN LHD, USS Boxer, demonstrated the value of a big deck LHD compared with a more limited helo platform like that found on the LPAs. I am sure this helped convince the army to support navy moves to acquire the Canberra class LHDs rather than the smaller amphibious ships originally projected.

I also think the USMC should concider beefing up its LHD fixed wing capabilities with say a skijump. The larger size of the new LHD's should go some way to mitigating the additional burdens of F-35B over the harrier (greater weight, size, etc).

At present the USN seems to believe that it will be able to operate F-35Bs from the new LHAs and the Wasp class LHDs without a ski jump. I guess the large size of the USN ships makes this possible.

If the USMC sticks to its plans and buys only the F-35B version of the Lightning the aircraft will also deploy regularly from the CVNs (1 squadron on each). The article posted by AegisFC suggests that the navy would prefer not to have the VSTOL version on its CVNs. As well as some performance shortfalls, compared with the F-35C, I suspect the navy is worried about simultaneously operating VSTOL and CTOL aircraft from the CVN flight decks. Is anyone able to comment on operational problems that this might cause?

Cheers

StingrayOZ

August 3rd, 2007, 08:11 AM

Hot exhaust gases. different landing approaches, different take off styles.

The exhaust gases may be an issue, as from my poor USN CV experience they have lots of people on deck doing lots of different things at a high tempo of sorties. Could get awkward?

F-35A and B are very simular however. B would allow launching if the carriers ever had dammaged catapults (or say untried/unreliable e-catapults??!)

FiredForEffect

August 3rd, 2007, 08:17 AM

I guess there is no way the F35B could be catapult launched to save fuel and decrease flight deck confusion?

AGRA

August 3rd, 2007, 08:32 AM

Yes, there has been no offical announcement about Australia purchasing the F-35B.

Nor is there anywhere within the Australian capability development process an official concept defining a STOVL strike fighter. This is only an idea held by lobby groups – the Naval League – and individuals.

I would say there are certainly signs Australia is heading towards the F-35B route. For example the origional tender for the Canberra Class from Natavia had the skijump removed. Several illistrations, a large model was made. However it is now back on the ship and the tender.

This is wrong. The Request For Tender did not stipulate a ski-jump it was in there as a capability option that was not essential. The RFT called for ship design and subsequent build strategies – the lowest cost, the highest capability with lowest cost and the highest capability with highest Australian build content. The winning solution was from the middle category. It actually would have cost the Government more if they wanted the ‘Juan Carlos I’ class without the ski-jump because of the cost of redesign.

Nothing is in concrete, but I would say its just a matter of say 2015 or 2020.

First part is wrong second part right. There is nothing at all in Defence to acquire the F-35B. In 2015-20 things might be different…

I also think the USMC should concider beefing up its LHD fixed wing capabilities with say a skijump. The larger size of the new LHD's should go some way to mitigating the additional burdens of F-35B over the harrier (greater weight, size, etc).

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.

I am sure this helped convince the army to support navy moves to acquire the Canberra class LHDs rather than the smaller amphibious ships originally projected.

It wasn’t like that at all. The defining of the size of the ships came from back-planning what the size and logistical requirements of the landing force was. This is what grew the size to the ~20,000 tonne ship able to carry 1,000 passengers and launch simultaneously 6 helicopters. The ADAS requirement is still actually for 3 ships but because of budget limits only 2 ships have been ordered.

AGRA

August 3rd, 2007, 08:37 AM

I guess there is no way the F35B could be catapult launched to save fuel and decrease flight deck confusion?

Because its wing is smaller it would have to have some down angle on the engine and/or the lift fan going. This would create the much feared down blast. Having copped a blast of pooled rain in the face, super heated by aircraft engines while on a flight deck I can tell you its no laughing matter. And this was just a C/D taxing (the pilot had given it a bit of throttle but still nothing like an F135 pointed down!).

Tasman

August 3rd, 2007, 05:39 PM

It wasn’t like that at all. The defining of the size of the ships came from back-planning what the size and logistical requirements of the landing force was. This is what grew the size to the ~20,000 tonne ship able to carry 1,000 passengers and launch simultaneously 6 helicopters. The ADAS requirement is still actually for 3 ships but because of budget limits only 2 ships have been ordered.

I accept what you are saying here about how the decision to call tenders for the 20,000 + tonne LHDs came about. As you are aware, though, the decision to acquire the LHDs was strongly opposed by some vocal 'defence experts' within academic and media circles, who argued for smaller ships. I believe that the army deployment of Blackhawks from USS Boxer, demonstrated how effective an LHD was compared with ships like Kanimbla and Manoora, and showed the advantages of a big flight deck to media covering the exercises. Photos of ten Australian Army Blackhawks on the deck of Boxer were widely published. IMO, it was important to maintain a campaign to reinforce the decision to acquire the larger ships right up until the contract was awarded.

AFAIK it is still the intention to acquire a third 'sealift' ship to support amphibious operations.

In the same way I believe that cross decking USMC and/or RN F-35Bs could be used to demonstrate the value of this capability in an effort to win wide support within the ADF and the public for Australian operations of its own F-35Bs. Maybe this will never happen in which case the LHDs will still be an extremely valuable ADF and coalition asset. Certainly the larger size of the F-35B compared with the Harrier AV-8B would make the presence of two extra decks available to support USMC aircraft a welcome addition during coalition operations, particularly if the USN convinces the Marines to buy the F-35C for its Hornet replacement and restricts the deployment of VSTOL aircraft from its CVNs.

Cheers

StingrayOZ

August 3rd, 2007, 07:31 PM

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

August 3rd, 2007, 08:12 PM

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

August 3rd, 2007, 10:09 PM

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

August 6th, 2007, 11:23 AM

AegisFC

August 6th, 2007, 02:33 PM

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

August 6th, 2007, 11:52 PM

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

August 7th, 2007, 02:22 AM

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

August 7th, 2007, 06:49 AM

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

August 7th, 2007, 08:37 AM

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

swerve

August 7th, 2007, 08:49 AM

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

August 7th, 2007, 08:57 AM

I can't see it being that difficult personally.

swerve

August 7th, 2007, 09:30 AM

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%20de%20Asturias/AV8III.jpg
http://www.nato.int/pictures/database/large/b00691.jpg

Pingu

August 7th, 2007, 10:16 PM

Ozzy Blizzard

August 8th, 2007, 03:36 AM

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

August 8th, 2007, 07:23 AM

Pingu

August 8th, 2007, 11:07 AM

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

August 8th, 2007, 01:14 PM

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

August 9th, 2007, 04:52 AM

...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

August 9th, 2007, 06:00 AM

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

August 9th, 2007, 06:58 AM

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.

swerve

August 9th, 2007, 07:18 AM

... 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

August 9th, 2007, 01:15 PM

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

August 9th, 2007, 01:34 PM

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

August 10th, 2007, 02:18 AM

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

August 10th, 2007, 02:38 AM

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

August 10th, 2007, 03:02 AM

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

August 10th, 2007, 03:25 AM

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

August 10th, 2007, 04:05 AM

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

August 10th, 2007, 04:31 AM

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

August 10th, 2007, 04:48 AM

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

August 10th, 2007, 08:45 AM

Galrahn

August 10th, 2007, 11:17 AM

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

August 10th, 2007, 11:50 AM

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

August 10th, 2007, 01:49 PM

harryriedl

August 10th, 2007, 01:53 PM

Galrahn

August 10th, 2007, 04:07 PM

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 (http://mt-milcom.blogspot.com/2007/07/aircraft-carrier-air-wing-assignments.html) for comparison.

Tasman

August 10th, 2007, 05:26 PM

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

August 11th, 2007, 11:28 AM

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

August 11th, 2007, 05:12 PM

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

August 11th, 2007, 05:19 PM

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

10ringr

August 11th, 2007, 05:40 PM

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

but you realize that our Navy cannot accomodate 10 Aircraft Carriers outfitted like you describe as a complete CSG. We simply don't have that many ships. If you just had an average of 7 ships in a CSG and 10 CSG's then you'd have to have 700 ships to pull it off and we don't even have half that number in our navy. That is what troubles me. I know we have the carriers, but you have to be able to protect the carrier and you can't do that with what we have. Do you see what I'm saying? I just wanted to bounce this off you guys because I find it troubling when we need 5-6 CSG's to handle something like an Iraq/middle east conflict. Things aren't going to get better any time soon and likely to get worse with China squirting out ships/aircraft like rice cakes. Hutch

kato

August 11th, 2007, 05:47 PM

If you just had an average of 7 ships in a CSG and 10 CSG's then you'd have to have 700 ships to pull it off and we don't even have half that number in our navy.
Your math is uhhh... a bit weird. Besides, there aren't 7 ships in most CSGs.

10ringr

August 11th, 2007, 05:56 PM

Your math is uhhh... a bit weird. Besides, there aren't 7 ships in most CSGs.

It could be ............. but because not all of them have the same number of ships I'm using the example Galrahn mentioned as follows:
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)

If you have 10 Aircraft carriers and you DON'T even have 300 surface vessels in the navy then you can't outfit each Carrier with 7 ships. That's over twice the vessels we have. Do you understand where I'm coming from now? Hutch

barra

August 11th, 2007, 06:01 PM

If you just had an average of 7 ships in a CSG and 10 CSG's then you'd have to have 700 ships to pull it off and we don't even have half that number in our navy. That is what troubles me.

Then put your mind at rest 10ringr, as Kato suggests your arithmetic is out by a factor of 10. 10(CSG's) x 7(ships in each CSG) = 70(ships in total), then take away your 10 carriers and that leaves 60 other ships to make up your CSG's. I think the USN has over 50 DDG's alone so they seem to have plenty of ships to play with.

Hooroo

10ringr

August 11th, 2007, 06:08 PM

kato

August 11th, 2007, 06:11 PM

Then put your mind at rest 10ringr, as Kato suggests your arithmetic is out by a factor of 10. 10(CSG's) x 7(ships in each CSG) = 70(ships in total), then take away your 10 carriers and that leaves 60 other ships to make up your CSG's. I think the USN has over 50 DDG's alone so they seem to have plenty of ships to play with.

Exactly. Of course, in reality, you also have the 12 ARGs to escort in theory, and there's also the surface strike groups plus other duties - and the necessary overhead for ships in maintenance and similar.

On the other hand one of the carriers doesn't have many escorts at all (the one around Florida for training), most of the ARGs don't have pre-assigned escort groups really, and, occasionally, allied ships take up some escort duties within surface and carrier groups as part of exchanges of course.

btw, you'll also have to add the auxiliary into that CSG there, as it isn't listed.

AegisFC

August 11th, 2007, 08:42 PM

On the other hand one of the carriers doesn't have many escorts at all (the one around Florida for training),

You must be refering to the Kennedy, that rusted out POS was decommed back in May and towed away to from Mayport a week or 2 ago (I watched it being towed away).

kato

August 11th, 2007, 10:00 PM

You must be refering to the Kennedy, that rusted out POS was decommed back in May and towed away to from Mayport a week or 2 ago (I watched it being towed away).
Yeah. They already decommed her in May? Thought they wanted to wait till September (with slow deactivation starting in March).

Anyway, according to the navy website there are currently 5 CSGs and 6 ESGs underway. The "deployable battle force" numbers 278 ships, of which 144 are not underway and currently in their homeports (data as of August, 10th). Too lazy to find out how many and which kind of escorts are assigned to above groups.

@Galrahn: I thought there were 10 ESGs? 7 LHD + 3 LHA? (NVR lists those as active)

10ringr

August 11th, 2007, 10:41 PM

Yeah. They already decommed her in May? Thought they wanted to wait till September (with slow deactivation starting in March).

Anyway, according to the navy website there are currently 5 CSGs and 6 ESGs underway. The "deployable battle force" numbers 278 ships, of which 144 are not underway and currently in their homeports (data as of August, 10th). Too lazy to find out how many and which kind of escorts are assigned to above groups.

@Galrahn: I thought there were 10 ESGs? 7 LHD + 3 LHA? (NVR lists those as active)

Thank you. I thought the the Kennedy "POS" (I don't like her being called this) was a mistake given she had in 1997 the most advanced "Command, control and communication platforms in the navy (C4) and while she did get cheated out of her COH's, she would take far less money to get her in shape then what they cost new. I read that besides her arrestor equipment which needed work it could have been at least maintained if needed and when I say maintained I don't mean letting it rot like the Russian Navy for instance in their ports. (No offense to anyone). Besides with Aircraft carriers costing 6+ Billiion why wouldn't you make use of the platforms you have? At the very least they ought to let the Brits. overhaul it since they are always talking about getting a "real carrier" and while they are talking about a deal with the Frenchies, they talk........ a lot! Hutch

10ringr

August 12th, 2007, 02:23 AM

swerve

August 12th, 2007, 07:53 AM

... At the very least they ought to let the Brits. overhaul it since they are always talking about getting a "real carrier" and while they are talking about a deal with the Frenchies, they talk........ a lot! Hutch

If you read the Royal Navy thread, or followed the news, you'd know that last month the UK placed orders for two new carriers of 65000 tons (over 70000 US tons).

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/NewCarriersConfirmedInDefenceBudgetIncrease.htm

"[L]let[ting] the Brits overhaul it" has never been an option, since the RN has no interest whatsoever in ancient, maintenance-heavy ships which need huge crews just to keep running. If the ship had been offered free of charge to the RN, it would have been refused.

AegisFC

August 12th, 2007, 01:10 PM

Thank you. I thought the the Kennedy "POS"

The list of problems that ship had when they decommed it was very long indeed, it did not pass any of its recent INSURV inspections (and that is a very BAD thing), its boilers, fire fighting pumps, cat's, arrestor gear, and plenty of other things either had problems or were broke, voids were rusted to the water. The ship has not been certified to launch or recover aircraft for years.
Granted all those problems were fixable but the money just was not available even before Iraq added a further squeeze on the budget and you can trace most of Kennedy's problems back to when her SLEP was cancelled halfway though when the yard she was at was closed by then Sec. Defense Cheney.

harryriedl

August 12th, 2007, 04:00 PM

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 (http://mt-milcom.blogspot.com/2007/07/aircraft-carrier-air-wing-assignments.html) for comparison.

just looking at the strike craft on board a its remarkably close to the CVFs complement 44 strike aircraft to 42-36 aircraft[depending on which source you look at] of course the CVN complement is much more balanced and could take more aircraft

also are 5 E2 regularly carrieied because i always thought the optimum number was 4 for the E2

harryriedl

August 12th, 2007, 04:42 PM

If you read the Royal Navy thread, or followed the news, you'd know that last month the UK placed orders for two new carriers of 65000 tons (over 70000 US tons).

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/NewCarriersConfirmedInDefenceBudgetIncrease.htm

"[L]let[ting] the Brits overhaul it" has never been an option, since the RN has no interest whatsoever in ancient, maintenance-heavy ships which need huge crews just to keep running. If the ship had been offered free of charge to the RN, it would have been refused.

we been refusing US carriers since 1978 ish[around the CVA01 time the UK was offered an unPhantomised Essex class i believe] their is just too much different stuff in the ship and its just too difficult to alter an old carrier to the need of a new user and their is the huge crew requirement which makes them even less appealing [5,000 crew for a US CV compared with 1500 for the CVF and Invincibles]

10ringr

August 12th, 2007, 05:53 PM

we been refusing US carriers since 1978 ish[around the CVA01 time the UK was offered an unPhantomised Essex class i believe] their is just too much different stuff in the ship and its just too difficult to alter an old carrier to the need of a new user and their is the huge crew requirement which makes them even less appealing [5,000 crew for a US CV compared with 1500 for the CVF and Invincibles]

Thanks for the information. I see that you are probably right. Hutch

Galrahn

August 12th, 2007, 09:21 PM

just looking at the strike craft on board a its remarkably close to the CVFs complement 44 strike aircraft to 42-36 aircraft[depending on which source you look at] of course the CVN complement is much more balanced and could take more aircraft

Surge can include Marine Aviation. I'll be interested to see what the 'typical' deployment of a CVF looks like. I don't expect to see more than 24 F-35s on a standard deployment.

also are 5 E2 regularly carrieied because i always thought the optimum number was 4 for the E2

5 is what they hope to carry in the future with the E-2D, I'll wait and see it before I believe it. Same with EA-18G, the Navy is looking for 5 per CAW.

Galrahn

August 12th, 2007, 09:36 PM

If you have 10 Aircraft carriers and you DON'T even have 300 surface vessels in the navy then you can't outfit each Carrier with 7 ships. That's over twice the vessels we have. Do you understand where I'm coming from now? Hutch

313-ship fleet possible breakdown:

11 CSGs (10 Active)
9 ESGs

9x1 CSG = 1 CVN, 1 CG, 4 DDG
6x1 ESG = 1 LHD, 1 LPD, 1 LSD, 1 CG, 2 DDGs
2x1 ESG = 1 LHA(R), 1 LPD, 1 LSD, 1 CG, 2 DDGs

Forward Deployed

1 ESG = 1 LHD, 2 LPD, 1 LSD, 1 CG, 2 DDG
1 CSG = 1 CVN, 1 CG, 4 DDG

If you add up the above, you end up with

10 CVNs
7 LHDs
2 LHA(R)s
10 LPDs
9 LSDs
19 CGs
58 DDGs

That leaves 1 CVN, 2 LHA(R)s, 1 LHD, 3 LSDs, and 4 DDGs not counted, not to mention all the current FFGs or future LCS.

The LHA(R)s and LHD will be used for the sea base and the 3 LSDs are being deployed for GWOT missions. The 1 CVN would be in refueling, and it has 4 DDGs for it (but no CG). It is unclear how the LCS will fit into this mix in the future.

10ringr

August 12th, 2007, 11:29 PM

313-ship fleet possible breakdown:

11 CSGs (10 Active)
9 ESGs

9x1 CSG = 1 CVN, 1 CG, 4 DDG
6x1 ESG = 1 LHD, 1 LPD, 1 LSD, 1 CG, 2 DDGs
2x1 ESG = 1 LHA(R), 1 LPD, 1 LSD, 1 CG, 2 DDGs

Forward Deployed

1 ESG = 1 LHD, 2 LPD, 1 LSD, 1 CG, 2 DDG
1 CSG = 1 CVN, 1 CG, 4 DDG

If you add up the above, you end up with

10 CVNs
7 LHDs
2 LHA(R)s
10 LPDs
9 LSDs
19 CGs
58 DDGs

That leaves 1 CVN, 2 LHA(R)s, 1 LHD, 3 LSDs, and 4 DDGs not counted, not to mention all the current FFGs or future LCS.

The LHA(R)s and LHD will be used for the sea base and the 3 LSDs are being deployed for GWOT missions. The 1 CVN would be in refueling, and it has 4 DDGs for it (but no CG). It is unclear how the LCS will fit into this mix in the future.

Thank you. I will refrain from making mathmatical calculations for some time :( Hutch
I must remember to keep a adequate bedtime, instead of staying up late and sounding like an itiot! Hutch

Ozzy Blizzard

August 13th, 2007, 01:21 AM

StingrayOZ

August 13th, 2007, 03:16 AM

Is there a two seat version on the horizon?

I know its theoretically possible, using bits off B and A series planes to provide room and some additional development. But are they needed? With all the electronics on board, networking etc, its hard to forsee why a two seater is required.

Also these ship calculations seem to ignore underwater assets. SSN's are in demand and would also be required. However I think there are enough of them, but patrols would suffer if all were assigned escorting duties.

It also shows why friendly nations can't rely on the US assets. In a demanding set of circumstances, they won't have free assets avalible.

harryriedl

August 13th, 2007, 08:02 AM

Surge can include Marine Aviation. I'll be interested to see what the 'typical' deployment of a CVF looks like. I don't expect to see more than 24 F-35s on a standard deployment.

5 is what they hope to carry in the future with the E-2D, I'll wait and see it before I believe it. Same with EA-18G, the Navy is looking for 5 per CAW.

the 42 F35B was from http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/ which is one of the more reliable sources

quoted from the passage: 'The carrier will support 42 Joint Combat Aircraft carrying out up to 420 sorties over five days and be able to conduct day and night time operations. The maximum sortie rate is 110 Joint Combat Aircraft sorties per 24-hour period.'

also so at present its 4 E2 carried.

and lastly since marines are keen to have an independent air arm do they have any interests in organic AEW

harryriedl

August 13th, 2007, 08:13 AM

Quick question guys, does anyone know what the two seat variants of the F35 will be called. Traditionally every even letter, i.e. B,D,F, was used but B (as you all know) indicates the STOVL version. So whats the plan?

as far as i know no two seat version is funded

for those who say SH are have better range than a F35B a SH without tanker support range 390NM an F35B unrefuled range is 400NM thats 10 NM further and its got the advantage of internal stores and STOVL