NIMITZ CLASS AIRCRAFT LOAD

The USAF has also shown interest in the USN’s F-35C. (i.e. Larger Wing) Personally, I think it would be a good idea to cancel the CTOL F-35A. Which, it turn could save much in the overall program!!!! Regardless, I wouldn’t be surprise to see a landbased F-35C in the future. 😎

JSF News

DATE:20/09/05
SOURCE: Flight International
Italy plans mixed fleet of JSFs

Italy has decided to operate a mixed fleet of conventional and short take-off and vertical landing (CTOL/STOVL) Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, says Rear Adm Steven Enewold, JSF programme executive officer, writes Graham Warwick.

Rome had planned to acquire STOVL F-35Bs to replace its Alenia/Embraer AMXs and Boeing AV-8B Harrier IIs, but now plans to acquire a mixed fleet that would also replace some of its Panavia Tornados. The decision could increase Italy’s JSF requirement from 130 aircraft to 200 and strengthen its discussions with the USA on establishing a final-assembly and checkout line.

The UK is also conducting another analysis of the F-35C carrier variant (CV) for operation from its future aircraft carriers, having previously selected the STOVL variant. New US Air Force chief of staff Gen Michael Moseley has meanwhile reconfirmed the service’s interest in the STOVL JSF as well as the CTOL F-35A, says Enewold.

For the UK, Lockheed is studying a rolling vertical landing capability that would allow the STOVL aircraft to return with a heavier load. “If we can get 40-50kt [70-90km/h] lift over the wing we get more bring back,” says Enewold. This could also interest the USAF, which “does not have a vertical landing requirement”. The air force also wants to put an internal gun – currently only in the F-35A – back in the F-35B.

The UK’s analysis of the STOVL and CV variants is tied to a decision next year on the size of its future carriers, but Enewold warns: “The CV is the least mature of the variants. We have provided the best information available, but there is more uncertainty with the CV.” Lockheed has just begun laying out the F-35C’s design and has recently increased wing area by 3.7m2 (40ft2) to cut approach speed.

www.flightinternational.c…+JSFs.html

Note from a knowledgeable person I know who says Enewold quoted above thinks thus.:

“Rear Adm Steven Enewold, JSF programme executive officer is not confident of the continuation of the F-35C. “

Now thats discouraging if true.

There is some question on where the price will go with the reduction of the buy by the USN and USMC of 409 aircraft.

Not to mention other factors that are sure to increase the cost.

Thanks for the links. The intent wasn’t to start a disagreement but to get to the source of the information. It sounded like you were using the Proceedings article to support your claim of the future carrier airwing makeup but the GAO report gives the numbers just as you said they were. It’s a shame they’re this far from production and they’re already starting the chop game. Makes me wonder if they factored in the fact that that’s going to jack the price up on a per unit basis when they did their figuring.

Indeed some of the article is that way and I knew it.

I did not post it as the official plan but to answer some of your questions. As I thought we had cleared up what the official plan is. Apparently not.

Officially the USMC plans on only buying and operating the STOVL version.

However, the USN has hinted that they may want the USMC to operate the conventional version.

Reading the entire article would clear up some of your perspective.

I disagree on your comparison of Proceedings and Af mag for a variety of reasons. I read both. Among numerous others.

These two links should clear up some of your questions also:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21488.pdf

OK.

I should add the exact mix of C and B variants is not yet etched in stone. But the USMC plans on buying all STOVL variants unless forced into the coventional carrier variant by the USN.

In the USNI Proceedings magazine of December 2003 is an excellent article by Col. Robinson USMC entitled:

TACAIR Integration
Must Optimize JSFs

Heres a free snippet. The entire article is not on-line unfortunately. Im a life member of USNI. So I have the magazine article. I will post a coupla other snippets from it also.:

“Marine squadrons in CVWs should be equipped with the STOVL JSF because of the synergistic effect of increased range and operational flexibility within the same air wing. Furthermore, it saves [DoN MOA] more than $300 million based on the $2 million lower price tag associated with STOVL JSF compared to the CV variant.”

As for carrier suitability he states:

“A STOVL JSF can operate with the CV variant from the same carrier deck. With standard carrier launch winds of 30 knots over the deck, STOVL JSF can take off from forwrad of the jet blast deflecor on all four catapults with a full internal ordance load and 96% internal fuel.”

also :

“It can launch and recover for operational or force protection purposes when wind over the deck requirements cannot be acheived for convetional catapult and arrestment operations(such as when steaming downwind for recovery, when operating in resticted waters, when transiting through choke points, during underway replenishing, or in the event of a ship casualty).”

The thing about Naval Proceedings is that like Air Force Magazine a lot of what you see in there is what somebody thinks would be a good idea or speculation. Not ALL of it by any means and certainly the people writing the articles have access to better information but at least the parts you’ve posted suggest it’s more of a “this is the way it *ought* to be and why” kind of article rather than “this is the way it WILL be”.

F-35B on CVNs seems stupid at first but suddenly it all sounds so much better. being able to deploy at least some fighters when being unable to steam at 30+kts – or when in port for that matter – opens a lot of operational possibilities for the carrier group and could make a big difference in a crisis situation.

Who said fighters can’t launch unless there’s wind over the deck?

F-35B on CVNs seems stupid at first but suddenly it all sounds so much better. being able to deploy at least some fighters when being unable to steam at 30+kts – or when in port for that matter – opens a lot of operational possibilities for the carrier group and could make a big difference in a crisis situation.

OK.

I should add the exact mix of C and B variants is not yet etched in stone. But the USMC plans on buying all STOVL variants unless forced into the coventional carrier variant by the USN.

In the USNI Proceedings magazine of December 2003 is an excellent article by Col. Robinson USMC entitled:

TACAIR Integration
Must Optimize JSFs

Heres a free snippet. The entire article is not on-line unfortunately. Im a life member of USNI. So I have the magazine article. I will post a coupla other snippets from it also.:

“Marine squadrons in CVWs should be equipped with the STOVL JSF because of the synergistic effect of increased range and operational flexibility within the same air wing. Furthermore, it saves [DoN MOA] more than $300 million based on the $2 million lower price tag associated with STOVL JSF compared to the CV variant.”

As for carrier suitability he states:

“A STOVL JSF can operate with the CV variant from the same carrier deck. With standard carrier launch winds of 30 knots over the deck, STOVL JSF can take off from forwrad of the jet blast deflecor on all four catapults with a full internal ordance load and 96% internal fuel.”

also :

“It can launch and recover for operational or force protection purposes when wind over the deck requirements cannot be acheived for convetional catapult and arrestment operations(such as when steaming downwind for recovery, when operating in resticted waters, when transiting through choke points, during underway replenishing, or in the event of a ship casualty).”

No. Its not “wishful thinking”. Its the official plan. Not hard to look it up.

But with your attitude I wont be providing any links to info. Your on your own.

The plan is to have one USMC squadron in each air wing. Ten total vice the four that are assigned now.

The USMC plans on buying only F-35B. Ergo those are the planes that will be used.

Yeah I was out of line and I apologize. More often than not you find people stating opinion and wishful thinking as fact and well. . .it just seems ODD that they’d have the VTOL version on carriers when they’re going to put them on amphibious assault ships anyway so it was a little hard to swallow. How’s that going to affect the operation tempo as the B’s can’t use the catapults or the arresting gear? Obviously they don’t need them but you’d have to clear a path for the take off and how is that going to affect traffic on deck? Considering that the Wasps and the Tarawa replacements (LHX/LHA (R) ) will be able to carry the F-35B (with the LHXs having 20 of them onboard) and they will already be in the area anyway do they really gain that much by having them on the carriers too? The Cs will have a much longer range than the Bs so it cuts in half the amount of aircraft you can put against a target from the further range. Where’s the upside?

No. Its not “wishful thinking”. Its the official plan. Not hard to look it up.

But with your attitude I wont be providing any links to info. Your on your own.

The plan is to have one USMC squadron in each air wing. Ten total vice the four that are assigned now.

The USMC plans on buying only F-35B. Ergo those are the planes that will be used.

Not likely to happen:

“How about:

30 F-35Cs
30 F-18E/Fs
8 F/A-18Gs
4 E-2s
10 Tankers (additional Super Hornets most likely)
10 Helicopters.”

Its planned to be:

12 F/A 18F
12 F/A 18E
10 F 35C
10 F 35B(USMC)
4 EA 18G
4 E 2C
plus helos

50 aircraft on a carrier designed for 90+?? And why do you thin USMC F-35s will be deployed on carriers when they’ll have them on amphibious assault ships? It makes no sense whatsoever. Why deploy the STOVL version on a carrier when you can just have more (more capable) C’s? Sounds more like wishful thinking on your part to me.

Not likely to happen:

“How about:

30 F-35Cs
30 F-18E/Fs
8 F/A-18Gs
4 E-2s
10 Tankers (additional Super Hornets most likely)
10 Helicopters.”

Its planned to be:

12 F/A 18F
12 F/A 18E
10 F 35C
10 F 35B(USMC)
4 EA 18G
4 E 2C
plus helos

That’s too bad. My favorite was always:

24 F-14
24 F/A-18
10 A-6E
4 EA-6B
10 S-3 Vikings
4 E-2C
6 Helicopters.

the total was 89 but I don’t recall what else there was to make up the difference. Probably tanker Intruders

How about:

30 F-35Cs
30 F-18E/Fs
8 F/A-18Gs
4 E-2s
10 Tankers (additional Super Hornets most likely)
10 Helicopters.

Carrier Air Wings are undergoing major transitions at this time.

Below are the notional/nominal CAW complements for each fleet:

Pacific Fleet

12 F/A 18F
12 F/A 18E
24 F/A 18C(N)
4 EA 6B
4 E 2C
5 SH 60F
2 HH 60H
2 SH 60B

In addition a two plane C 2A detachment is normally present on deployments.

Atlantic Fleet

12 F/A 18F
12 F/A 18E
12 F/A 18C(N)
12 F/A 18C(N)
4 EA 6B
4 E 2C
5 SH 60F
2 HH 60H
8 S 3B

In addition a two plane C 2A detachment is normally present on deployments.

Notes:

More or fewer aircraft may deploy in each individual squadron.**

USS Roosevelt is deployed with approx. 20 F 14D in two squadrons.

Three squadrons have yet to transiton to the F/A 18F. The two mentioned above plus the last F 14B squadron which will begin transition shortly.

Four squadrons remain to transition to the F/A 18E one in FY 2006 and three in FY 2008.

As a result some air wings will not deploy with an F/A 18E squadron and an additional F/A 18C(N) squadron will continue to be included.

Some USN squadrons still fly the F/A 18C and some USMC squadrons still fly the F/A 18A+.

USS Reagan’s air wing presently has two F/A 18E squadrons assigned.

All S 3B aircraft have been withdrawn from Pacific Fleet air wings.

A two helo SH 60B detachment has been added.

**
Example:

USS Nimitz air wing deployed in 2003 with 14 F/A 18F plus one additional HH 60H and one fewer SH 60 F helos.