Aircraft Carriers III

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
As I mentioned in an earlier post [#4,020], when assessing the capability of an aircraft carrier we need to look firstly at the ship itself and the aircraft it is operating. The U.S. military has made much of the “Lightning Carrier” concept as a significant capability. The LHA/LHD + F-35B system (“Lightning Carriers”) - a V/STOL aircraft carrier - combines a very good amphibious assault ship and a stealthy strike fighter that at maturity will be a very fine aircraft. However, as an aircraft carrier system there are some significant issues
Well Lightning carriers as a concept should be viewed differently than a full carrier. I was debating a guy elsewhere who was being very hard on the RN for the QE class. He kept pointing to the CdG class and Rafale until I pointed this out. They really are two different types of ships and missions.
Back in the 70s Admiral Elmo Zumwalt pushed the Sea control ship concept which is where the Japanese Carrier/Destroyers sit. A scale up of that was the VSTOL Carrier concept which is where the lightning carrier and most of the carriers around the world really sit. Including the Queen Elizabeth class. In World war2 they would have been light carriers or Escort carriers. Rather than power projection into enemy territory they operate more as escorts. Hosting ASW aircraft and interceptors with some strike capacity. For an example of how this would work look at the British during the Falklands as their carriers were built to this mission type. They used ASW and EW helicopters to great effect and Harriers to intercept and strike close to ground forces.
The vessel itself:

- low 20kts speed
Not a big issue as it’s not the slowest of a convoy or Expeditionary group. A Fleet like a formation is only as fast as it’s slowest member. The San Antonio class for example only makes 22 knots and that’s a sports car compared with most of its foreign counterparts.
- position of port side lift can impact flight operations

- no sky jump likely reduces F-35B range/payload performance
true yet without an angled deck that’s not a big factor. Because the USMC primarily lands them vertically or perhaps at a very short roll it’s faster just to roll it off the deck onto the lift.

The advantage is you can take off at a faster rate land more than one at a time without loosing deck space to the jump, albeit more as a burst of activity vs a CVN. Though F35 won’t VTOL as it would cost to much payload it will short roll, there is no time penalty of resetting the barriers and cat. The disadvantage is by loosing the angled deck you eat into space for recovery and yes payload. But then again Even bigger carriers like Queen Elizabeth class don’t have angled decks for this.
The aircraft (F-35B):

- no folding wing results in a larger footprint than would otherwise be (Note the F-35B has a larger footprint than a folded F-35C)
Larger than F/A18 or F35C for sure. Equal to Rafale. Folded wings though is one of the trades for VTOL as none of the harrriers had it. The weight issue factors.
- no internal gun (addition of stealthy external gun pod adds approx. 383kgs and likely impacts RCS, to an unknown degree)
This one also falls into a comparison of vs what? In the case of F35B it’s meant to replace AV8B which also uses a gun pod. As an interceptor it doesn’t need a gun as the VLO and rapid take off means if intercepting it should be able to get into a position to ID the Boggy and make the kill move without starting a close in gunfight. Which was the logic of F4 Phantom and many interceptors. It seems to be that of J20 today it’s also how the Sea Harriers worked in the Falklands. The main function of the gun being strike missions which is why they moved up to 25mm. The Pod in question was designed to have a Reduced radar cross section and fits fairly recessed into the fuselage meaning it’s likely a low impact.
- no ability to utilise “Sidekick” racks for additional AIM-120 missiles

- limited up to 1000lb weapons on outboard stations in weapons bay
Vs F/A18 it would be a step down but vs AV8B+ Huge advance. AV8B can only sport 4 Aim 120. F35 can sport 4 in its internal bays alone. The 15,000 lb weapons payload of F35B is 5,800 lbs more than AV8B. So depends on what you are comparing.

Unknowns:

- what is the bring back load for vertical landings?

- what is the range/payload performance without sky jump?
The first one will very a lot by conditions but an early F35B info graphic from Aviation week claimed in the neighborhood of 5,000 lbs. SRVL is said to add about 2,000 to 3,000lbs of bring back. But *conditions of weather atmosphere air temp make this all variable. Void where prohibited not valid in Afghanistan or the Nations of the Hindu Kush. Consult a corpsman if rash appears. Side effects may include Mustache.

Because F35B on LHA would be making rolling short take offs not vertical I am not sure it’s that much if any of a real difference all the ramp grants is 60 foot of altitude depending on where you start rolling and the head wind that can be made up for. The US LHA doesn’t have a ramp as the main vehicle for it isn’t the F35, it’s V22 and UH1 and CH53. Aircraft that wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the ramp.
can the Joint Strike Missile be carried internally in the F-35B
The answer is no. But then again the JSM has a range of 185-555km range depending on launch profile meaning that chances of launching near a air defense radar range are low. It’s a VLO stand off weapon. Meant to sneak up on its prey and say Hi There rather suddenly.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
If there was a true lacking aspect to the Lightning carrier it’s the current lack of an organic AEW and tanker capacity.
The most obvious answer to the AEW would be adopting The RN Crowsnest and Searchwater systems. They don’t match the Hawkeye but for the job of fleet defense are damned good. They offer a less fuel thirsty platform for the job albeit with the penalty of lower altitudes and less capacity. Of course the USN doesn’t use the Eh101. So it would have to be adapted to either H60 or V22. Concepts for the latter have been offered along with as a tanker. The Latter was even demonstrated.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Alliteratively there was at least a study into a dedicated EV22. However that seems to me more like a replacement for E2 than what the USN is looking for. Particularly since it would suffer lack of pressurization meaning lower altitudes of operating. V22 was designed to replace a transport helicopter not a Awacs. Retrofit to a tanker is relatively simple the kit can be palletized. A dedicated AEW not so much.
Of course there was also at least mention of an AEW MAGTF UAS Expeditionary MUX drone. This would be a smaller VTOL drone for multiple mission sets. Which is still to a degree on going with a larger ground based and smaller naval system. To quote.
MUX is a medium-altitude long-range UAS that will be a cornerstone capability for the Marine’s Littoral Regiment
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
These two aspects more than any other, topping off Lightings and potentially other aircraft of the LHA “Lightning carrier” as well as an Organic AEW would really make the Lightning carrier concept a potent asset. Not a ramp or angled deck or other elevator. Even adding these two to a Ship like the Queen Elizabeth class would make more capable possibly even a rival to conventional carriers.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
For a ship class with roughly the same displacement as the Charles de Gaulle the America class is way less effective at least in terms or air combat. As for the QE class I think it was a mistake for the UK to go with STOBAR. Even the UK government eventually realized it themselves but only too late as the first ship was already too far into construction. You have more complex and less capable aircraft with much less payload and loiter time or range. If anything I think what happened in the Falklands was more of a fluke than anything. Had the Argentinians built airbases closer to the Falklands in preparation or had the French not sabotaged their Exocet missiles the results could have been quite different.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Again I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. The same one I encountered elsewhere. You are looking at it from an offensive perspective. That of the true fleet carrier. America class and Queen Elizabeth Class are not Fleet carriers they pull duty as Air assault and escort. Their mission sets are to provide Airborne infantry infiltration along side amphibious infantry infiltration. Their air arms augment the formations anti Submarine, Anti surface warfare and interception of threat aircraft into the formation. They also act to support the organic infantry force.
Even the French after a Fashion have an equivalent the Mistral class which uses helicopters for ASW and AShW. The concept does have its weak points. However when you consider how far the Convoy of Expeditionary Combat group can operate from the flagship. Or how far the Infantry forces can operate from the fleet the short range isn’t as big an issue. The weaker firepower isn’t as big as a deal as they aren’t penetrating deep. The additional firepower can be supplied by operating in tandem with CVN fleet carriers.

Vs Argentina they didn’t have the option of building closer airfields. Save for the single airstrip on the main island of the Falklands themselves. Yet even there it wasn’t an option as the British deployed longer range RAF bombers. The Harriers when they deployed then could chase off or down the bulk of enemy fighters.
The claim of French sabotaging of their missiles is pretty doubtful interns of having some vast effect. The British used helicopters to try and spoof off said missiles so they clearly had no confidence in the supposed sabotage. We know that the British took losses to them. This whole line seems more like revisionists looking to cover the political asses of the Argentine Air Force for its failures. Like the claims of them having Sunk British carriers when we know those carriers came home safely.

The goal of a sea control carrier is primarily convoy support. It’s not unique. Look at the other carriers of Europe besides the CdG. Even the Russian Carrier want doctrinally designed as a fleet carrier. That was supposed to be the Ulyanovsk or later Project 23000E both never built.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
So now the Royal Navy is reduced to being battle tralls for the US. Pathetic.
Good thing the Tories gave away the Harriers for pennies years back huh?
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
American and British have the closest Mil to Mil relationships in the world. What you call Pathetic is a sign of this.
Historically Americans have served in British units and British have served in American all the way back to the First World War. The relationship between the RN and USN and USMC and RMC are especially close.
The RN and USMC did this out of trust. Eventually the Fleet air arm will get operational and take the place on the Ships as is however operating a USMC wing allows the British crews to gain experience on the unique aspects of the new fighters. Well British Aviators train up their F35B in the states with Marines.
But let’s roll with your Counter factual here.
Although the loss of Harrier did render the Fleet arm nonexistent as a fighter force the Harrier as an aircraft is obsolete and incredibly dangerous to operate as well as difficult to maintain. Phasing them out and selling them off may have only gained back a fraction of their costs however by that point they were of little remaining life cycle and none of those airframes were reused as any more than spare parts due to their age. The 72 Harrier IIs had been RAF units prior to 2006 that then replaced even older more obsolete Sea Harriers. Those Harrier IIs were by then 28 years old and had been noted as though newer than the 60s era Sea Harriers still suffering maintenance issues due to small numbers and limited parts as well as training.
Even if they had been maintained even with an SLEP it would have only bought till 2018 as the MOD was looking to contract for a life cycle upgrade that would have ended then. Let’s see that would have gotten the last year on Ark Royal and then 3 more on Invincible then what? After those retired Fleet Air Arm Harriers would have ended up with nothing to land on. Sure you can say HMS Ocean but she was configured for Rotorcraft. With the Queen Elizabeth only getting her Commission in 2017 that would have bought a years service max most of that being training before they would have ended up in the same bone yard. Then what? Those pilots would have had to do exactly what they are now being shipped to the US to retrain on F35B.
With the Decks of the Queen Elizabeth Class empty unless as happened the USMC was offered to use it. And you complaining about it being Pathetic.
 
Top