This is a discussion on A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by harryriedl
But some harrier carriers should be able to use the F-35 with the minimum of modifications. ...
But some harrier carriers should be able to use the F-35 with the minimum of modifications. Invincible's can take the F-35 and in theory the PdA should as they have just enough runway length, and the lifts are big enough (just) and can carry an empty F35.
I could have sworn that the MM was going to modifier GG for the F-35
Yes, some Harrier carriers could operate F-35B, but not very effectively. It might be OK for the short term, pending the acquisition of a newer, bigger, ship. It doesn't make sense to build a new ship like that.
I doubt that modifying a 30+ year old ship to take an aircraft which it can barely operate however modified would be considered. GG is smaller than Invincible, or even PdA.
Yes, some Harrier carriers could operate F-35B, but not very effectively. It might be OK for the short term, pending the acquisition of a newer, bigger, ship. It doesn't make sense to build a new ship like that.
I doubt that modifying a 30+ year old ship to take an aircraft which it can barely operate however modified would be considered. GG is smaller than Invincible, or even PdA.
If can find it I though the poster Conti de Cavour mentioned that years ago that GG was going to be upgraded for the F-35 (of course it might have changed). I agree though it much better to build a new than upgrade an old ship.
The sad and sorry history of the various RN carriers is a warning from history of the perils of upgrading old ships for modern aircraft
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
The GG is a old and very tiny carrier. I think only the Thai carrier rivals it for size.
The f-35b is approximately the same size as a harrier so people assume it can physically fit then all is ok. Its what 100-200% heavier. Lifts would need to be upgraded, decks strengthend etc. All of this at the top of a ship, you can't just increase the mass of live loads several times and not have an impact on the stability of the ship (although the GG is a small enclosed sea carrier).
Fuel load is way larger. While the GG could operate a airwing of 6 harriers, the F-35B will chew that fuel with a single aircraft. The ship does not have lots of free space, I don't know how it could be upgraded to do anything useful with a F-35.
They may keep it around as a training carrier, helo carrier etc. However it would be very limited as a F-35B carrier.
If can find it I though the poster Conti de Cavour mentioned that years ago that GG was going to be upgraded for the F-35 (of course it might have changed). I agree though it much better to build a new than upgrade an old ship.
The sad and sorry history of the various RN carriers is a warning from history of the perils of upgrading old ships for modern aircraft
In fairness to the RN post war carriers, the delay between designed and commission was at a time of astonishing growth in aircraft weight. From Swordfish to Buccaneer in 15 years! Whereas the Forrestals entered service at a simliar time, but with massive stretch designed in so they could carry the bomb, contributing to c40 years life.
The Midway class tells a different story. They were constantly upgraded and modified to use newer and heavier aircraft (except the F-14).
The midways are different in my eyes compared with the UK conversions as they were very large by world war 2 standards, the UK conversions were marginal at best from a very early on and all very different with very little standardization. With conversions of varying standards from advanced to obsolescent dependent on money and time period another problem known with the WW2 carriers was the use of substandard steel especially with the wartime builds which was another reason for prompting the replacement of some ships early other than the dire fiscal situations.
Though the 1960s fleet looks impressive virtually each ship is completely different which is frankly stupid 5 different classed(with two largely in forgine ownership) with some vessels with some equimpent which others didn't have. For example the electrical systems of the ships by the late 50s the RN moves over to AC from DC which it has used since the late 1900s but their are many wartime carriers still on DC which makes power-supply marginal at best so some are converted completely to AC Victorious,Eagle and Hermes get the full conversion but the expense is too much for the rest of the fleet so. The rest solider on until it gets so desperate that some are fitted with Hybrid systems which are cheaper but again not all have the conversions its the same with all most all the other aspects of the carriers. Once they saw the cost of modifications they should have gone new build.
Im not denying that they had very good service and before the cost of the modifications were know it looked sensible
Besides the midways were horrid sea boats at the end of life with very little seaboard and a vicious roll neither are ideal for F-18 Ops. The US conversions I like much better as they were largely to similar standards and had much better margins plus their were supercarriers being built so it wasn't an either or situation which the RN had.
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
The GG is a old and very tiny carrier. I think only the Thai carrier rivals it for size.
The f-35b is approximately the same size as a harrier so people assume it can physically fit then all is ok. Its what 100-200% heavier. Lifts would need to be upgraded, decks strengthend etc. All of this at the top of a ship, you can't just increase the mass of live loads several times and not have an impact on the stability of the ship (although the GG is a small enclosed sea carrier).
Fuel load is way larger. While the GG could operate a airwing of 6 harriers, the F-35B will chew that fuel with a single aircraft. The ship does not have lots of free space, I don't know how it could be upgraded to do anything useful with a F-35.
They may keep it around as a training carrier, helo carrier etc. However it would be very limited as a F-35B carrier.
Yup.
GG is the second smallest Harrier carrier built. Chakri Naruebet is the smallest.
F-35B is only a little longer, wider & taller than a Harrier (> 1 metre x >1 m x ca 0.75 m extra compared to the AV-8B+, which is the biggest Harrier), but twice as heavy, both empty & loaded.
Deck length isn't a constraint. F-35B designed to take off with 550 ft (165m deck length). Even the Chakri's deck is longer than that.
Fuel is a consideration. Sea Harrier/AV-8B = 5000/7750lbs (770/1200)gal internal fuel. F-35B = 14000 lbs (2160 gal).
For existing carriers like Invincible (250000 gal), there's still more than enough for ops. (18 x 3 sorties x 2160 = 117k gal a day). Worse case scenario, bring a fuel tender/tanker along to refuel aviation gas every day.
The critical factor is sortie rates, no point even considering placing F35B's on an LHD/LHP unless you can sustain a credible CAP/CAS presence aloft, otherwise you are simply adding to the pain and loss should the ship be sunk.
Both the RN and USMC have spent a great deal of time calculating the minimum amount of airframes and support to ensure F35B 24-7 coverage over the fleet/beachhead. In the case of the USMC they ended up with a Wasp/America class, the RN a QE class.
The Invincible class, though not designed from day one to carry Harrier, ended up being just about the absolute minimum size capable of hosting a credible CAP able to provide 24-7 coverage in time of conflict (three jets aloft at any one time). So based on the three rule, your vessel needs to be able to host at least nine jets to allow for maintenance, bombing-up and transit to and from your aerial patrol box. You could srink this number to two aloft at a bare minimum, but they will all ways end up flying as a pair, so your options are limited. Ideally you want at least two flights of two allowing for a greater area of coverage bringing the total number of airframes carried to twelve.
Last edited by riksavage; July 2nd, 2010 at 02:36 AM.
Harriers can fly at most 40-60 min CAPs. F-35Bs (with double internal fuel) doubles that time in air.
Harriers would need double the sorties to maintain continuous CAP as compared to the F-35Bs. Haven't even factored in more fuel is spent taking off and landing for each sortie.
Harriers can fly at most 40-60 min CAPs. F-35Bs (with double internal fuel) doubles that time in air.
Harriers would need double the sorties to maintain continuous CAP as compared to the F-35Bs. Haven't even factored in more fuel is spent taking off and landing for each sortie.
Talking about the necessity for continuous combat air patrols in the era of the AWACS aircraft & Aegis equipped destroyer sounds like you're planning on refighting the Battle of Midway (or the Falklands) with 21st century forces . In the era of asymmetrical warfare in reality very few potential enemies can field the technologically sophisticated air-power needed to penetrate the screen put up by your new AWD/ 'Hobart' class . I'd suggest modern carrier air groups are more likely to find themselves engaged in the offensive role rather than in maintaining continuous CAPS - at least in the traditional sense of the term 'CAP' .
The very real threat modern SSK's pose to a carrier /amphibious task force (and its vital logistical train) on the other hand must be taken seriously .
Talking about the necessity for continuous combat air patrols in the era of the AWACS aircraft & Aegis equipped destroyer sounds like you're planning on refighting the Battle of Midway (or the Falklands) with 21st century forces . In the era of asymmetrical warfare in reality very few potential enemies can field the technologically sophisticated air-power needed to penetrate the screen put up by your new AWD/ 'Hobart' class . I'd suggest modern carrier air groups are more likely to find themselves engaged in the offensive role rather than in maintaining continuous CAPS - at least in the traditional sense of the term 'CAP' .
The very real threat modern SSK's pose to a carrier /amphibious task force (and its vital logistical train) on the other hand must be taken seriously .
These are just hypothetical musings as there are no F-35B equipped carriers yet.
The rationale for CAP is more than just putting planes in the air. Today's tech enables aggressors to detect targets and launch anti-ship missiles from further away. To intercept these aggressor must necessarily include long range detection. Planes in the air reduces interception timings allowing interceptions to take place further. So CAP is not an outdated concept. One plays defense at the same time as undertaking offensive ops. It applies even for land based CAP over fleet in littorals.
Relying solely on ship based detection eg Hobart is precisely the same problem as Falklands. Horizon (earth's curvature) restricts range of sea level detection of sea level targets.
Unfortunately, there are few AWACs options for CVs. Helo AEWs don't have sustainability. E-2s/E-3s can't operate from VSTOL carriers. That's one reason why the QEs were procured.
Agree that SSK/subs are a different dimensional threat. This is not new and tactics wise has been debated since the days of Russian subs posing a threat to US CVN group (as well as in the Falklands).
The critical factor is sortie rates, no point even considering placing F35B's on an LHD/LHP unless you can sustain a credible CAP/CAS presence aloft, otherwise you are simply adding to the pain and loss should the ship be sunk.
Both the RN and USMC have spent a great deal of time calculating the minimum amount of airframes and support to ensure F35B 24-7 coverage over the fleet/beachhead. In the case of the USMC they ended up with a Wasp/America class, the RN a QE class.
The Invincible class, though not designed from day one to carry Harrier, ended up being just about the absolute minimum size capable of hosting a credible CAP able to provide 24-7 coverage in time of conflict (three jets aloft at any one time). So based on the three rule, your vessel needs to be able to host at least nine jets to allow for maintenance, bombing-up and transit to and from your aerial patrol box. You could srink this number to two aloft at a bare minimum, but they will all ways end up flying as a pair, so your options are limited. Ideally you want at least two flights of two allowing for a greater area of coverage bringing the total number of airframes carried to twelve.
OK, say we don't need constant CAP, we might however need constant CAS on call (as with A-Stan), particularly against a failed or rogue state where your beachhead is coming under constant attack from fairly unsophisticated technology (anything from T55's, RPG's, recoilless rifles to 81-120mm mortars dug-in).
