I’d like to know what carriers around the world, planned or in service,
what weight of a/c they can launch ?
More specifically, which carriers are too small to operate F-35C loaded with say,
full tank & 5000 kg of ordnance ?
And will these smaller carriers be capable of operate N-LCA & Sea Gripen ?
By: John K - 28th February 2011 at 15:57
Quote:
Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II: Making Progress
1/12/2011 By Greg Reeder, Headquarters Marine CorpsThe STOVL JSF will carry more ordnance with greater range than the F/A-18 Hornet, operate from austere expeditionary environments like the AV-8B Harrier, and ultimately possess electronic warfare technology similar to the EA-6B Prowler.
Really? In their dreams perhaps.
By: benroethig - 27th February 2011 at 15:35
The F-35B is nowhere near being canceled.
Not in Scooter world, but in reality, it was one meeting away from the axe. Amos fought tooth and nail for that two year probation. Any hiccups or any further cost cutting and its gone.
By: Bager1968 - 27th February 2011 at 10:18
Predictable, but anyways:
US puts F-35 STOVL variant on two-year probation
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw110110_1_n.shtmlPresidential debt-reduction commission will propose canceling the short-takeoff-and-landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 fighter under development for the U.S. Marines.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5152759&c=AME&s=TOP
First link… OLD NEWS, from 1 1/2 months ago, and well-discussed around here.
Second link… OLDER NEWS, from 2 1/2 months ago… and NONE of that commission’s recommendations have made it anywhere except into the trash.
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th February 2011 at 10:17
Predictable, but anyways:
US puts F-35 STOVL variant on two-year probation
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw110110_1_n.shtmlPresidential debt-reduction commission will propose canceling the short-takeoff-and-landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 fighter under development for the U.S. Marines.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5152759&c=AME&s=TOP
Quote:
Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II: Making Progress
1/12/2011 By Greg Reeder, Headquarters Marine Corps
Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md — The Marine Corps performed a significant maneuver today with the Corps’ short take-off and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the STOVL F-35B Lightning II. The BF-2, a test version of the fighter jet, accomplished its first vertical landing and conversion back to normal flight. This is an important step for the fighter that the Corps has scheduled to replace three other types of combat aircraft in its aging fleet: the EA-6B Prowler, AV-8B Harrier and F-18 Hornet.
The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James F. Amos has communicated that the Corps will track the progress of the new aircraft to ensure engineering and test points are accomplished over the next two years. Despite some recent concerns over performance, cost and schedule, the Marine Corps contends that it is dedicated to the success of this program – and being able to operate and land virtually anywhere in the world while supporting the continuous tactical air missions the Corps demands.
The STOVL JSF will carry more ordnance with greater range than the F/A-18 Hornet, operate from austere expeditionary environments like the AV-8B Harrier, and ultimately possess electronic warfare technology similar to the EA-6B Prowler.
The Marine Corps anticipates reaching initial operational capability for the JSF F-35B in 2012-2013. This first proven capability step will include the a training squadron of 15 aircraft in VMFAT-501 at Eglin AFB, an operational test and evaluation detachment of 4 aircraft at Edwards AFB, and VMFA-332, the Corps’ first operational squadron of 10 aircraft, at MCAS Yuma. The VMFA-332 aircraft will be equipped, manned and trained to execute Marine missions and deploy ashore or afloat from U.S. Navy
By: obligatory - 27th February 2011 at 09:34
Predictable, but anyways:
US puts F-35 STOVL variant on two-year probation
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw110110_1_n.shtml
Presidential debt-reduction commission will propose canceling the short-takeoff-and-landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 fighter under development for the U.S. Marines.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5152759&c=AME&s=TOP
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th February 2011 at 08:57
No, the trend is that F-35B may be canceled, or simply cost too much, and half of the carrier operating navies world wide become as impotent as the others stuck with a coast guard/large slow targets,
because their governments/taxpayers won’t fork up the money for a full carrier.
The F-35B is nowhere near being canceled. Plus, while in maybe more expensive than it’s Naval or Land Based Counterparts. I doubt it will loose any orders because its 2-5 Million more than it’s cousins.
Also, as long as you bring up capabilities. The Italian Carrier Cavour with a Air Wing of F-35B’s. Will be much more capable then the Indian Vikramaditya (ex-Gorshkov) equipped with Mig-29K’s and N-LCA. 😉
By: obligatory - 27th February 2011 at 08:11
No, the trend is that F-35B may be canceled, or simply cost too much, and half of the carrier operating navies world wide become as impotent as the others stuck with a coast guard/large slow targets,
because their governments/taxpayers won’t fork up the money for a full carrier.
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th February 2011 at 07:10
No country is proposing a Small Carrier with Catapults and Arresting Gear. The trend is towards larger and more conventional Carriers or smaller ones equipped with F-35B’s.
By: obligatory - 27th February 2011 at 03:03
How long can Harriers around the world carry on ?
I think i’m with Distiller on just weld a hook on a standard Gripen for the small carriers usual 4-10 a/c.
The wing is small enough not to be notably interrupted between launch & recovery, & the ease of turning both carrier & a/c compatible is almost as priceless as having the ability to take down would be bully recce/attack a/c.
Perhaps Djakri Na-ruebet will come into its own soon 🙂
By: benroethig - 26th February 2011 at 21:21
Length, yes (which matters for take-offs), but slimmer & lighter. There’s less deck to move aircraft around on, & while that could probably be widened, her hull’s not big enough to take a deck the size Ark Royal ended up with.
That because Ark was refitted with an angled deck. Cavour is pure axial deck. When it comes to waterline beam, Cavour is 111ft and Ark was 112. The deck overhangs added after the late 60s refit bring it to a flight deck width of 171ft.
By: swerve - 26th February 2011 at 20:55
Cavour is actually almost exactly the same size as Ark Royal IV.
Length, yes (which matters for take-offs), but slimmer & lighter. There’s less deck to move aircraft around on, & while that could probably be widened, her hull’s not big enough to take a deck the size Ark Royal ended up with.
By: Rii - 26th February 2011 at 19:30
Problem is that funding isn’t going to be forthcoming for any of this stuff. The pressure on European defence budgets is only going to increase as the demographic crisis deepens, and the burgeoning naval powers appear to have grander ambitions than to finagle the operation of Sea Gripen-class aircraft from 25k ton carriers. If F-35B is cancelled, my bet is that that’s that for Italian/Spanish fixed-wing naval air.
By: benroethig - 26th February 2011 at 18:35
Yes. If (very big if) a proper cat & trap Sea Gripen is built, a modified Cavour should be big enough for it.
EMALS might be kinder on aircraft than steam catapults, being more controllable.
Also more scaleable and reliable.
The RN operated Buccaneers (same weight as A-6 or F-4, but better take-off characteristics) & Sea Vixens (much heavier than a Sea Gripen – similar to Rafale) off HMS Hermes, which is slightly smaller than Cavour.
Cavour is actually almost exactly the same size as Ark Royal IV.
By: swerve - 26th February 2011 at 14:51
Yes. If (very big if) a proper cat & trap Sea Gripen is built, a modified Cavour should be big enough for it.
EMALS might be kinder on aircraft than steam catapults, being more controllable.
The RN operated Buccaneers (same weight as A-6 or F-4, but better take-off characteristics) & Sea Vixens (much heavier than a Sea Gripen – similar to Rafale) off HMS Hermes, which is slightly smaller than Cavour.
By: benroethig - 26th February 2011 at 14:16
better yet with an AEW helo or even better an Osprey with EriEye.
Erieeye wouldn’t work with an Osprey. It would interfere with the wing fold. I take that back, assuming there’s enough ground clearance, you could mount something similar to erieye on the bottom and have it on a hinge like the KA31.
Small Carriers can’t operate Conventional Naval Aircraft. That said, with the advent of the F-35B. It’s Air to Air Capabilities will match most adversaries.:diablo:
Small carriers can’t operate medium class conventional aircraft. Light class aircraft like the proposed sea gripen are another story. With EMALS, wouldn’t need a ship that much larger than than the old Colossus/Majestic classes. 25-30,000 tons would do it.
By: Arabella-Cox - 26th February 2011 at 10:54
No, give me some carrier based fighters any time, if only for fleet defense,
better yet with an AEW helo or even better an Osprey with EriEye.
Ships without fighter support is merely target practice for any strike group with stand off munitions, it is priceless for just about any possible situation, vertical landing or not.
Someone has a signature going as ” without organic fixed wing, you havn’t got a navy, but coast guard”, and i couldn’t agree more.
The only sense that statement makes is in the context of you promoting F-35 at all cost by belittle everything that isn’t F-35
Small Carriers can’t operate Conventional Naval Aircraft. That said, with the advent of the F-35B. It’s Air to Air Capabilities will match most adversaries.:diablo:
By: obligatory - 25th February 2011 at 10:57
Yet, only by the flexibility of STOVL aircraft like the Harrier II and F-35B.
No, give me some carrier based fighters any time, if only for fleet defense,
better yet with an AEW helo or even better an Osprey with EriEye.
Ships without fighter support is merely target practice for any strike group with stand off munitions, it is priceless for just about any possible situation, vertical landing or not.
Someone has a signature going as ” without organic fixed wing, you havn’t got a navy, but coast guard”, and i couldn’t agree more.
The only sense that statement makes is in the context of you promoting F-35 at all cost by belittle everything that isn’t F-35
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th February 2011 at 10:35
What about a naval version of the FA-50 Golden Eagle as an interesting STOBAR aircraft?
The market is really small to start with. So, I doubt you would see anybody fund the conversion of a Land Based Type to a Naval Type.
In short forget about any Sea Gripens, Sea Typhoon, Naval F/A-50’s, etc. etc.
As anybody interested in a Naval Fighter has a large selection already available. (i.e. N-LCA, Rafale, Super Hornet, Mig-29K, F-35B, and F-35C)
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th February 2011 at 10:31
You can see the trend is moving away from Ski Jump Carriers. As the limitation far out weigh the advantages. Especially, if your looking for Medium to Large Carriers.
Which, is not to say that Small Carrier like the Italian Cavour and Spanish Principe de Asturias don’t have a place. Yet, only by the flexibility of STOVL aircraft like the Harrier II and F-35B.
By: nocutstoRAF - 23rd February 2011 at 18:50
What about a naval version of the FA-50 Golden Eagle as an interesting STOBAR aircraft?
Sign In
February 23, 2011 at 1:33 am