 |
| via What If Model Site. |
Just a simple mind exercise guys.
Forget the fact that its darn near improbable, lets say it does happen. Lets say the F-35 is cancelled. What now?
My thinking goes like this....
*We ride the F/A-18's we have till they break.
*We DO NOT buy Super Hornets.
*We re-engine the Harriers with upgraded Pegasus engines. The current model puts out about 23,000 pounds of thrust. If Rolls Royce can get us more thrust then we're cooking with gas (literally)...I know nothing about engines so it may or may not be possible.
*We re-wing the Harrier and optimize it for a swing role. That means longer thinner and swept.
*The Harriers that were bought from the British are upgraded with parts taken from F/A-18's (some parts will have to be refurbished...like the AESA arrays).
*Lengthen the air frame to allow the carriage of more fuel internally.
That pretty much covers it.
What do we get out of this? We get a potentially more maneuverable airplane. A plane that gets closer to going supersonic (it might cross the threshold...who knows). But we also get to complete the plan and neck down our aviation squadrons to one type of attack/fighter plane.
This is all fantasy. But if the improbable becomes possible then its better to have a fall back plan than to be jumping through our ass trying to figure it out!
It is called the ASTOL Harrier...it was to be a supersonic Harrier,bigger and with advanced avionics...Acording to the book Modern fighter combat by Mike Spick,it would have use a «plenum chamber burning and it would be capable of mantaning a CAP for 2,5 hours at an unspecified distance.»The biggest telling against the Harrier/Sea Harrier back then was «how do you intercept an supersonic Backfire with a subsonic Harrier».
ReplyDeleteBut the could war ended and so did the ASTOL Harrier...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_P.1154
ReplyDeleteHow many hours are left on the Harrier airframes? It may not be worthwhile to do anything with them if they're going to start flying apart soon.
ReplyDeleteHow about get out of the fix-wing air business and fight joint like the Army?
because of a different role and function. the Army doesn't have units afloat that might have to react to a minor crisis alone. the incident in Libya had an MEU close by and Harriers provided air support to MV-22's when they rescued the shot down Air Force pilot. the distance was too great for Cobras to do the job and even if they were within range they are too slow to keep up.
Deletethe Army does good but different work.
i'm not sure what flying apart means. quite honestly we have B-52's that are suppose to be in service for almost 100 years. having said that IF necessary we should be able to get a few more years out of the Harrier.
B-52s keep flying because they pull very few Gs and don't stress their airframes. They fly basically an airliner profile.
DeleteThe AV-8Bs, OTOH, are fighter aircraft. They pull G's on a regular basis.
Losing fixed wing air would be a loss in capability, but it is an expensive capability to begin with.
My solution is to throw "different" money at the problem. Stop making LHAs and LHDs and build a real CTOL carrier (see the French PA2) that can double as an LPH. That way it can fly all current and future fixed-wing Navy aircraft.
This would be a huge improvement over the relatively paltry fixed-wing capability on the LHA/Ds.
To pay for it, cancel the F-35B, buy cheaper Super Hornets instead, and reduce the number of CVNs to 8. A total of 10 CV/LPHs and 8 CVNs would be a large net improvement in the number of CTOL carriers.
If that wasn't far enough, stop producing CVNs altogether and build a conventional Ford class instead. This should be significantly cheaper in the long run, once the initial design and development costs are sunk.
what do you do with the rotary winged aircraft? what about the rest of the MEU? artillery, tanks, HUMVEEs, AAVs and/or MPC's? alot of people don't like to talk about it but the Harrier has proven itself and its not VTOL but STOVL capability that is the key. as it is the LHA and LHD allow you to put a massive assault force at sea that can handle at least 75% of the operations that a cash strapped nation will demand of its ground forces. building carriers instead would take away that capability and would make the US even more dependent on pure air power than it already is. additionally even in its best form, the Super Hornet International is just a throwback to the Bombcat.
DeleteI agree B.Smitty on this one. If the F-35 is cancelled I think they should go the Super Hornet route. Buying those and, if necessary, switching carrier types as B.Smitty suggests doesn't in anyway preclude our current rotary wings.
DeleteGiven he Marines needs I never understood why they didn't do ski jump carriers like the British (see: HMS Invincible)? Save money on that stupid catapult and put that back in the armor and landing craft they need.
Rotary wing aircraft go on the CV/LPH. It will be bigger than an LHD/LHA, so there will be more room for them.
DeleteLand components will have to go on the LSDs/LPDs or MPF ships.
IMHO, the LHA/LHD concept is a jack-of-all-trades, master of none. It tries to do everything a little bit, but nothing well.
I'd like to see us build a cheaper and more numerous LSD/LPD (e.g. Harper's Ferry, Glacia, Rotterdam)to make up for the lost well decks and capacity, but we can't seem to avoid gold plating everything these days, so I'm not holding my breath.
An ARG/ESG would look this,
1 x CV/LPH
3 x Smaller LPDs
0-1 x mid-sized MPF ship (something that can access smaller ports directly, not a huge LMSR)
well your wish was granted but in the end got rejected. the USS America class LHA was in essence a light carrier without a well deck. the Marine Corps and Navy looked at it and the first two will be unique in class...all others will get a well deck again. i like the idea of the NON gold plated LPD's but that should be coming with the LSD replacement. i could live with the Rotterdam or Glacia classes as that replacement though the hull of the San Antonio class is suppose to make it capable of keeping up with a carrier battle group its so efficient.
DeleteLHA-6 isn't even close to what I'm talking about. I want a CV that can operate F/A-18s, E-2s, X-47s, Predator-style UAVs, F/A-xx, and so on. Basically anything that can fly off of a CVN can fly off of this CV/LPH, albeit in smaller numbers.
DeleteThen we are free of the STOVL straight jacket.
Imagine an ESG off the coast of Libya with a dozen Predator/Reapers/Sea Avengers, in addition to other aircraft. It could've flown persistent ISTAR-strike sorties around the clock without any local basing. The V-22s would've had Super Hornets for top cover, instead of short-legged, wheezy Harriers. E-2s could coordinate everything and Super Hornet CAPs could protect the battle group.
I'm not holding my breath that any of this will happen though. I seriously doubt we can build ANY amphibious ship these days under a billion dollars. The LSD replacement estimates are in the $1.2 billion range - so you can bet they will actually cost $1.8-2 billion.
IMHO, at these prices, the utility and cost-effectiveness of these ships diminishes greatly.
sorry but i'm just not buying it. one of the things that you'll run into with that type ship is the fact that it will directly compete with big deck carriers. that won't be allowed to happen. if we went that way then we could basically say that we had a Navy wit an unlimited budget and resources. if anything what you're actually talking about isn't revolutionizing amphibious forces but making a backdoor run at the carrier force. i for one have never been in favor of smaller carriers. its one of the big things i disagreed with Mike of New Wars about. what we should do is maximize the airwings that each carrier deploys with. instead of 60 odd fighters it should be back to 100
DeleteI don't expect any of it to happen. I doubt it will even come up as an option.
DeleteI think you could manage it within the budget. You'd just have to make up for the difference in price between an LHA/D and a CV. That's probably a billion or two per ship.
No, I'm not talking about revolutionizing amphibious forces, and I'm not talking about small New Wars-style STOVL carriers replacing CVNs. The PA2 has gone up and down in size between 60,000 and 70,000 tonnes. That's almost as big as a Kitty Hawk CV.
It's designed to carry 40 aircraft - more in an overload situation. That's enough to handle many situations. It can carry all of the fighters and force multipliers in a CVN air wing, just in fewer numbers. Depending on the theater commander's need, it could go full CV with 24 Super Hornets, 3 E-2s, 6 UCAV, 4 ASW helos and 3 dedicated tanker Super Hornets. Or a mixed CV/LPH load in an ESG.
Having 18 real CVs would be a net gain in naval airpower, even if only 8 were CVNs.
B. Smitty, I like your idea of a fixed wing LHA but what if you take it further. Supposedly the price of carriers has gone up because the build schedule was pushed back. Also, the Ford-class is supposed to be a more modular design than the Nimitz. Since a CVN lasts longer than an LHA (50 years vice 30) the upfront cost is only about 50% greater. Also, there is a report floating around that nuclear power could prove cheaper over the long run if oil prices remain around where they are.
DeleteSo what if we tried to replace both the CVN and the LHA with a single modified Ford-class. If some sort of easily modified structure was added to the hanger deck that could be used for additional berthing or vehicle storage than a CVN should be able carry a large number of Marines and equipment. You get 2,000 berths just by removing the airwing personnel. With a fleet of ~16 of these assault carriers, the Navy and Marines would both gain flexibility since the fleet could be used for either mission depending on what is needed.
That's an idea Fencer. Increasing build rates will also reduce the price per carrier. However I think the up front cost is still much higher for the CVN (especially the Ford class) than the LPH. And given the current budget climate, LHAs may be driven into their 40s anyway.
DeleteI don't buy the "nuclear power is cheaper" argument. I think once you add up all the hidden costs, you'll find it's a lot more expensive.
I'd like to see an analysis of an all conventional Ford class replacing both the CVNs and LHA/LHDs.
However, IMHO, we should go for a high-end, conventional, Ford-sized carrier, and this "medium-large" CV/LPH. Save on both accounts.
With respect to upfront cost I think I didn't express myself well. I think a Ford with higher build rates (and possibly not nuclear power) would likely cost around $6-8 billion based on the price of the Nimitz. However, since the Ford lasts 50 years your paying $120-160 million a year whereas a $3 billion LHA lasting 30 years costs $100 million a year. Of course, operating costs could very easily distort this.
DeleteMy biggest problem with your two tier solution is the potential of either a "battlecruiser" perception happening where the LPV (for lack of a better term) is put in a situation that needs a full size CV or a situation where Congress decides that since the LPV carries the same aircraft as the CV they should replace the CV. Going with an all 100,000 ton LCV (CLV?) insures that we will have enough carriers of sufficient size even if the number of dedicated "Navy" carriers continues declining.
If the F-35 was cancelled, you have no time and you have no money.
ReplyDelete-- You could keep the AV-8s running but re-winging is a lot of effort for little gain, modern avionics don't recycle easily and I have to think the Pegasus production line is cold and there's a good chance the people who worked on improvements to it are all gone, i.e. you're looking at a lot of time and effort to build an improved engine, again for minimal gain. In short, even minimizing development, you're looking at a low end bomb truck whose one advantage is VTOL, and what's really the point of that? It's not good enough to 'kick in the door' against any kind of opposition, so you can't do much without a carrier and then the Harriers become round off error.
-- or you could look at the way Harriers have actually been employed and see that what, 95%? 99%? of their combat missions have basically been CTOL where their VTOL capability is meaningless but their STOL capability has been very useful. The obvious move here it to buy Gripens: modern, low cost, very good STOL performance. But, they're not invented here and the USMC has shown they are willing to drag down all US air power everywhere to get their all important VTOL, so it's not an option, plus Congress would never fund it no matter how much sense it made.
-- which brings us back to the real options: either keep VTOL and revert to a permissive environment CAS only air element or buy Hornets and give up both VTOL and STOL to at least have a shot in medium and high threat environments.
Why would the Marines ever buy Gripens when they could just have Hornets? I don't understand that.
DeleteOn the other hand, though, the avionics suite in a Gripen was (mostly) designed by Honeywell anyway so our pilots would probably feel right at home.
The Gripen was designed from the start for STOL operations supported in comparatively austere environments i.e. what USMC doctrine calls for as they move ashore.
DeleteBeing a later design, the Gripen also has far superior aerodynamics; the NG model will supercruise.