TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
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.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
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.
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.The vessel itself:
- low 20kts speed
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.- position of port side lift can impact flight operations
- no sky jump likely reduces F-35B range/payload performance
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.
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.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)
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 internal gun (addition of stealthy external gun pod adds approx. 383kgs and likely impacts RCS, to an unknown degree)
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.- no ability to utilise “Sidekick” racks for additional AIM-120 missiles
- limited up to 1000lb weapons on outboard stations in weapons bay
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.Unknowns:
- what is the bring back load for vertical landings?
- what is the range/payload performance without sky jump?
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.
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.can the Joint Strike Missile be carried internally in the F-35B
Last edited: