The Ship Model Forum

Yes, but the "old guys" generally knew what they were doing, and understood what kinds of losses the air wings were going to take.

Now, its all about pixie dust and foo foos - nobody wants to acknowledge the many elephants in the room, let alone those perched in our coffee cups...

Deep penetration of heavily contested enemy air defenses is the domain of a handful of very, very specialized aircraft, and cruise missiles (USAF and USN) - JSF is not on the invitation list.

No tactical aircraft is going "downtown" on day one, or even the first week of war with NK or China; certainly not the JSF. A B-52 loaded to the gills with the weapons along the lines of CALCMs, AGM-129s (yes I know it is cancelled), and other stealthy stand-off weapons is far more relevant than a squadron of JSFs. If the Navy were smart, it would be building a big rugged, bomb truck that could loft heavy long range-missiles.

For the dirty little wars we are actually fighting today (and likely to fight in the future), a twin engine Cesna with an m134, a couple of 19-round 70mm rocket pods, two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, and four AGM-176 griffin missiles is more than enough.

..

There you have it!

Indeed.
We have lost Range (F-14/A-6 down to F-18 with 25-30% of the range)
We have lost Depth (reduction of numbers of aircraft per squadron and total deployed aboard)
We have lost Capability (All weather and deep strike gone, Air superiority seriously compromised, Sea Control and area ASW gone)
We have lost Skill (reduction in flight hours per pilot)

Other than that we have done a great job with improving the carrier air wing. (that was sarcasm)

I'd like to see a dedicated fighter design, as I'd like to see a dedicated strike aircraft, as well as a support airframe to replace E-2 and S-3, but with that virus known as the JSF consuming everything and its followers conducting an inquisition to destroy all who are not blind and total disciples, for the foreseeable future, you get F-35.

Rafale or Sea Gripen might be options if you were designing a non-US carrier.

The F-14 was in trouble after the Gulf of Sidra action in 1986. There were multiple incidents of F-14A not being able to get MiG-23 off their 6 o'clock. It was a major reason that Dick Cheney canceled the F-14D. The F-14 was an interceptor it was inherently to stable, it can't turn like the F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F, F-15, or F-16.

The remaining S-3 air frames are still at Davis Monthan and many are capable of being reactivated.

The A-6 had good range but its electronics were getting old and the despite its heavy war load, it's bomb sites like in the A-7 could not overcome the fact that the dumb bombs drift once dropped.

The F-35C will be able to penetrate enemy defenses well enough.

The large air wings in the 600 ship era reduced efficiency. F/A-18C and later F/A-18E/F can generate more sorties than the F-14 and A-6. The larger air wings were to compensate for the fact that nearly 40% of the planes were broken down in maintenance either having their engines swapped out or some other lengthy repair. The current air wings have fewer planes down for repairs at any time. The F-35C can be turned around faster than the Super Hornet.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

I thought that was the entire point behind the B and later models of the Tomcat; to restore the lost agility and capability that was part and parcel of using the wrong engine.

Most of the info I've seen indicates that the D was at least as agile as the entire alphabet you listed, so perhaps since that was where the Tomcat fleet was headed, that would be a more accurate comparison than the much older and phased out A model.

Some anecdotal stuff over here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 589.0.html (There's a fairly lengthy discussion about Tomcat upgrades, both actual and notional, and the effects of same. Most of what I'm referencing starts on the latter half of page 2, and the sources there are generally considered to be solid. Heck, I met one of the guys when we both worked at Lockheed. And for the record, I'm not claiming any authority as a closet Ninja/SEAL/Aerospace engineer, I'm in IT.)

Now all of that said, I think the general idea is correct; we weren't exactly operating F-14s off of the Midways, and that might be a better comparison to the airwing composition than a Nimitz/Ford would be. Additionally, I think we're going to see capabilities that would have the most strident Tomcat fan cringing in envy once LM works out the final kinks in the F-35.

The Serbian shoot down of the F-117, as well as other developments in radar and IRST raise serious questions about the F-35 survivability. More directly, the whole point of long range cruise missiles, and other systems is to handle the initial dismantling of enemy air defenses with exposing manned aircraft.


For peace time operations and low intensity wars you are absolutely correct, but current force structure will prove to be woefully inadequate in the face of a conventional war.

The reason is simple, the current air wing structure is optimized for sortie generation in the absence of attrition. That is an astounding feature for a combat force, but it works well dealing with 3rd world countries full of illiterate goat herders.

The problem is that it will not work against an opponent that can contest the skies with a substantial force of aircraft and defend his airspace with integrated ground based defenses (EW, missiles, AAA, etc.). Against the later, you need a force that is optimized to deliver maximum combat power in short pulses, absorb the inevitable casualties, and get back in the air ASAP to do it again.

In Vietnam, even with three carriers on Yankee station, and the larger air wings of maintenance friendly F-8s, and A-4s, the Navy found itself short of aircraft, and unable to properly fill out strike packages. And Vietnam was not a peer competitor – it had excellent air defenses late in the war, but could not put quantities of well trained fighters into the air.


That is the concept, but in practice, the stealth features have proven to be very maintenance intensive.

..

I think it is pretty clear the F-35 is what is going forward, and I think it will be a better strike aircraft than the Hornet/Super Hornet.

It brings back some range and adds updated electronics packages.

It is also hideously expensive, not a good air superiority fighter, and still does not have the range that older airwings had.

By size and weight it would fit just fine on a Midway sized carrier.

Whatever its strengths and failings, it is the only game in town at this point.

I do not think Super Hornet should be considered - it's range is still too low, and air-to-air maneuverability not that great. Now, I am in favor of modifying all existing and ordered Super Hornets with IRST, EPE, and CFT - "Advanced Super Hornet" - and keeping that production line warm until F-35C is at a reasonable operational capability (past IOC, maybe not all the way to FOC).
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... re-397927/

Clearly the F-35 is the way ahead. It should do well with sortie generation rates, and perhaps the 'alpha strike' role can be augmented by tomahawk missions.

The A-6's issues late in life were not the electronics, it was the hydraulics and engines which caused 90% of plane gripes.

I've always though the S-3 was ripe for recommissioning, it's APS-137 ISAR was a huge asset for sea control and would be a great asset for littorals. But it was not pointy and fast, so it went away. Could be a good candidate for conversion to an 'optionally manned' platform. Great endurance, lots of space - could be used for many things.

And no, I don't advocate going back to F-14 (to heavy for a medium carrier anyway) or A-6 (which did operate from CV-41), but trying to at least get near the range capability that they had. Range in an aircraft not only enhances security of the entire CVBG, but it keeps launch and landing evolutions down, and can require fewer aircraft to generate a given amount of hours in the air (no need to launch two aircraft if one can stay on station longer, no need to support every package with multiple tankers). Lack of range is expensive.

I honestly believe the most valuable trait F-35C will bring to carrier decks is more range than the Hornet or Super Hornet have right now.

The Super Hornet and F-35C are both really primarily strike aircraft, someday we will have to address air superiority from the decks of carriers.

Two quick points:

1) CVV at 62,000 tons was larger than a Midway class
2) Coral Sea operated A3Ds in Vietnam, and F-111Bs were tested aboard too

Epitaph:
"When it was realised that a repeat of the USS John F. Kennedy, the last conventionally powered large carrier to be built would only cost about $100 million more than the CVV, while being much more capable, the Navy and the Secretary of Defense Harold Brown recommended that a repeat Kennedy be included in the 1980 shipbuilding program instead of the CVV..."

..

I would love to see the sensor fusion of the F-35, be adapted to other platforms. The camera ability alone is worth a lot for passive sensing and I wonder if it could be added to that stealth ordinance pod they are working on for the Super Hornet. On your multi-role comment, a cartoon from the A-10 in the Gulf War book comes to mind. It had air conditioners in front of the engines to fool it into thinking it was at its designed altitude and a guy with NVGs on a pylon for rece missions.

On mobile so can't link to it right bow, but did you guys read the interview with Gen. Hostage on the F-35's nonkinetic capabilities? Apparently, the EW suite is so powerful that the opposing aircraft (in training missions) can't even target the F-35 unless the EW stuff is turned off. Also hinted was the ability to deliver viruses into enemy electronics, even those that aren't set up for wireless communications.


Basically, they're saying the plane has a lot of top secret non-kinetic capabilities that aren't available for public onowledge. The F-35 should not be thought of as just a linear evolution of the 4th gen planes. Is it true or just to convince foreign buyers? Who knows?

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Your combat radius for the F-14 is that a hi-hi-hi interception radius or a hi-low-hi radius? The A-6 and A-7 had poor low observable characteristics and while being good at low altitude the cruising performance at medium and high was poor. The A-6 and A-7 have reduced range and maneuverability when heavily loaded. The A-6 and A-7 had high ordinance load over the earlier generation to try to increase the hit probability by dropping more weight of ordinance. (Remember McNamara)

The Phoenix AWG-9 combination was good for shooting down bombers like the Tu-16, Tu-95, Tu-22, Tu-22M, and high altitude cruise missiles such as the P-700 Granit (NATO SS-N-19 "SHIPWRECK"), and KSR-5 (NATO AS-6 "KINGFISH"). The AIM-54C was considered suspect against low altitude super-sonic cruise missiles being deployed by the USSR in the middle 1980s. The AIM-152 was being developed to replace the AIM-54C.

Iran did have quite a few air to air victories with Phoenix.
Most kills claimed with Phoenix were of the MIG-23, MIG-25, Tu-22 "Blinder" (not "Backfire") H-5 (PRC Tu-16) Su-22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_ae ... n-Iraq_war

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝

I think that the F-35 does indeed have a lot of these "special" capabilities, but that puts it in the VAQ (Electronic Attack Squadron) category, not the VF or VFA category, and solely on the economics it is unsuited to replace the core of tactical aircraft (F-16s and F-18s).

We build force structures to achieve strategic objectives, the most magnificent fighter with the highest kill ratio does no good if the enemy can over run your airfields, or if you can buy so few that that the enemy can overwhelm them by numbers, shoot down your tankers, destroy your AWACs, and bomb your airfields. Numbers count.

This point bears repeating: most aircraft kills are destroyed on the ground. The reason the USA continues to focus so much attention on short and medium range ballistic missile reduction is that those weapons are supremely effective at destroying fixed area targets like airfields. This is a massive vulnerability for tactical aircraft, and destroying those missiles is hard and expensive.

Having a detachment of F-35s (alongside EA-18Gs), or even a squadron of them as part of a carrier air wing is probably a force multiplier, but they do not replace the core 4-5 squadrons of VF/VFA aircraft that do the heavy lifting.

The F-35 is indeed filled with conditional language, just like the F-14 was before it deployed, just like the M-1 Abrams was before it was tested in combat....when we push the envelope of technology by definition we are entering unknown territory - nonetheless, that journey for improvement must continue.

I think it is pretty clear I am not a blind F-35 supporter, I think that program had entered Spanish Inquisition/Monsanto levels of absurdity on stamping out all dissent and a never before seen level of escalating cost out of control. That does not mean I think most of technological concepts cannot work or are not possible. I do think we would have gotten a better aircraft with three separate designs sharing avionics and engine technology.

If we look at a CV designed today, we are looking at a 8-10 year span before commissioning, if everything goes well. That means F-35. Could/Should it also operate Advanced Super Hornet? Of course - but that should not be a driving factor of design. Changing to a dedicated carrier Air Superiority Aircraft and a dedicated Strike Aircraft is a whole different whif - and, in the end, I think F-35 will be that strike aircraft anyway. We would probably be better off designing a carrier based air superiority fighter after/in addition to the F-35, levering as much of the technology from that program as we can.

In simple numbers, an aircraft that cannot conduct an interdiction mission at 500 miles, or an interception mission at 500 miles, does not have sufficient range. Obviously, loiter time is also critical, but more difficult to express, and mission evolving long loiter times are the right missions to have tanker support.

We have good medium CATOBAR carrier example form a number of decades to use as examples:
1940-1990's - Midway
1960's - CVA-01 project (good article in the new Warship 2014)
1970's - CVV
1990-current Charles De Gaulle
2010's - Queen Elizabeth class

Combined, the data from these designs show us a few items:
1 - You need 900+ feet of LoA
3 - You are probably 230' wide at the flight deck.
2 - You need over 60,000 tons of displacement, probably 65k.

The 1/800 Midway translates out at 87.5% if measured in 1/700 scale - thus, 850' LoA, 208' FD width. Maybe too small - as that is essentially Charles De Gaulle size.

Side note: the LHD 'Plug Plus' option - a modification of LHD-8 with more beam and two plugs to add 77' in length - was supposed to be 921' LoA, 116' beam (128' Flight deck beam) with a full load displacement if 50,125 tons. That project was supposed to retain the well deck of the LHD while adding the enhanced aviation capability of the LHA-6.

An all-aviation 'Plug Plus' (no vehicles, no well deck, no Marine berthing/support) might well form a good basis to work from for a Medium carrier. This would probably have the size to operate a significant number of F-35B.

However, if is is CATOBAR, an increased speed could be expected to be required for wind over deck requirements, as well as needing an angled deck and service systems and design for catapults and arresting gear. Would that make the cost savings less than needed to be an effective alternative for a CVN?

Nice summary, I'm thinking the Queen Elizabeth with angled deck or a modernized JFK is probably where we need to be looking. Who makes good models of both?

I bet the best way to do it is to get a Nimitz and cut a plug out of it to shorten her up.

As a some-day project, I am thinking about using a Wasp and using it to represent a USS America LHA converted into a proper CV.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

..