Japan just launched a big deck LHD.
Everyone is assuming that means that they want to operate F-35B's from its deck....but why? The Japanese aren't about to become expeditionary. Every change in the constitution regarding defense is just to make there posture an active, not passive one.
Look at Singapore. Yes, they assisted the US in Afghanistan (or should I say NATO) but again, their entire force is built around repelling an attack, not in being an expeditionary force.
Additionally many of the countries in the Pacific can cover areas of interest from their land bases.
So I have to ask. Is the F-35B a slam dunk for use on the new LHDs everyone seems to be building/buying or is that simply us imposing our own world view on other nations?
The way the French but most especially how the Russians plan on using the Mistral Class should be instructive. Even better would be to examine how the USMC operated its early LHAs when the Harrier wasn't around. Just because you have an LHD doesn't mean you MUST mirror Marine Corps/US Navy operational philosophy (a more recent example would be how the Brits operated off the coast of Libya without Harriers at their disposal...that could be what others are actually seeing as the future).
If all you have is a hammer...
ReplyDeleteIt could be that they can operate it as a Helicopter carrier and have a mix of Attack, ASW and ASUW helicopters. The F-35B may be for those who can afford it.
ReplyDeleteA flat deck with F35bs will sink a fleet of flat decks with apaches.
ReplyDeleteWe used apache because its all we had.
The original fit for the invincible class was 4 sea harrier and 16 ASW helicopters.
They might not want mini carrier groups, but there are a lot of reasons to operate some organic aircover with a fleet
you're missing the point and you headed instantly into a naval battle when i was focused on amphibious operations.
Deletei was looking at the pacific nations in particular and noted that none of them are trying to become expeditionary and that they will use their lhds in a defense type role. additionally because thats the case they can be protected with a mix of land air and air defense destroyers.
in that context do you need to operate F-35Bs off your lhds?????
next. you took the myopic view that i was trying to nudge people out of, and instead went straight toward UK's defense needs and assumed that your needs are the same as the nations in question.
long story short. your thinking is flawed.
The Sea Harrier was there to provide point defence against bombers rather than warships, land based fighters can do that, but with difficulty a range increases.
DeleteNo one has an airfield on the spratleys
They are ALL becoming expeditionary
Thats why Japan wants a marine corps.
"in that context do you need to operate F-35Bs off your lhds?????"
Need to, no.
But its a giant force multiplier
Is the GIUK Gap hugely different from the JTP gap?
I'd agree they may not be looking at putting several squadrons on one, but a flight or two.
you.re so wrong it hurts. none of those countries CAN AFFORD or have the desire to become expeditionary.
Deleteevery move is in response to Chinese aggression. your point about the Harrier serving primarily as point defense is also a falsehood. even in the 1960's ships air defenses could reach out and at the time of the Harriers development the Brits still had full deck carriers. the Harrier was to fight in Germany and it was designed to operate off roads and fields because it was expected that the Russians would have Spetznatz killing every airman and blowing up every airplane before hostilities began and if they didn't the Russian air force would do the deed.
fast forward to today and the issues are totally different. you're talking islands and it has no resemblance to the projected European fight.
again. coverage for many of our allies can be provided by land based fighters and excellent Aegis type destroyers.
your arguments are faulty.
I think that TrT meant the Sea Harrier.
DeleteThe original concept was that it would provide *some* defence for an independent ASW group operating in the North Atlantic against Soviet long range aviation.
This might be interdicting recon aircraft or bombers. Although if the bombers came, I'm not sure what a handful of SHars could do as they had short range, low top speed and a WVR missile to fight off lots of fast strike assets armed with a bunch of long-range, fast and VERY hard hitting weapons.
So probably best at downing the odd Bear.
To directly answer your question no it's not a slam dunk and a flat deck doesn't equate to being able to properly operate a large strike fighter; moreover, an LHD that could operate some Harriers isn't necessarily going to be able to operate an aircraft twice as heavy like the F-35 (the empty weight of the AV-8B is roughly the internal fuel weight of the F-35B).
ReplyDeleteIn my view the ship has to be designed, or modified, to operate a large strike fighter like the F-35B and such a ship might be labeled an LHD but it's in fact an aircraft carrier. Even some of the existing small carriers in the world would be challenged operating the F-35B. The F-35B thus isn't plug and play. The ship needs enough physical space and strength (including the elevators), sufficient weapons and gas capacity and distribution (weapon elevators need to be designed in and along with deck refueling spots are crucial for operations), etc.
Moreover, nations able to operate small numbers of attack aircraft will find a challenge operating the far larger and capable F-35B and will have to ask if they really need carrier based strike fighters (need the expense as well). Consider India still operates the Sea Harrier but will replace these with conventional aircraft (MiG-29). Sure one could argue they just as easily operate the F-35B and not have to worry about arrested landing but could India in fact afford it?
If anything aircraft carriers keep getting larger because sustained operations require more stored aviation gas and munitions, the RN's new carriers are illustrative here, and the aircraft keep getting larger as well. All this aside a dozen or fewer F-35B's might be a useful expeditionary capability but it's not exactly going to provide enough capacity to defend a task force against any serious opponent. If anything it seems useful for operating within some international coalition as a political gesture. The real power projection players all operate real carriers and that includes nations that wish to become players.
@ Lane, agree with your above comment.
ReplyDeleteJust curious but in a amphibious operation or peace keeping mission, how much capability do you really get and especially need with 4 F35Bs operating off the deck compared to having some extra Apaches or Tigers on board, in terms of maintenance, fuel, time on target, weapons mix, crews in the air ready to respond,etc...? Maybe it isn't such a slam dunk when you factor all that in...maybe having a few more Apaches or an extra CH47 might be better.
I don't think Sol had in mind first day of war ops or A2D against China but more leaning towards ops like Libya and Mali, then is it really necessary to have F35Bs operating on your LHD and what are you having to leave home or reduce to have them on board?
Short answer: No. We do not have a fully functional F-35B to look at with a few years of USMC tribal knowledge in a real (not test) F-35 squadron. Until then... any decision is high risk.
ReplyDeleteSomeone mentioned Singapore?
ReplyDeleteDefense Writers Group: A Project of the Center for Media & Security, New York & Washington, D.C. | Interview: General Herbert J. “Hawk” Carlisle Commander, Pacific Air Forces 29 July 2013
Quote:
“DWG:...Then you also mentioned Singapore. We reported and heard that they are, they’re part of the F-35 program already, but that there was some movement to kind of complete an initial sale. Can you give us an update on —
General Carlisle: I talked to their CDF [Chief of Defense Force], Chee Meng. I was just in Singapore. [b]Singapore’s decided to buy the B model, the VSTOL variant to begin with.[/b] But I don’t know where they’re at in putting it into their budget. I know that’s a decision that’s been made and that’s why they’re part of the program, but I don’t know where they’re at in putting that in the budget....”End of Quote page 13 of 18
http://www.airforcemag.com/DWG/Documents/2013/July%202013/072913Carlisle.pdf (200Kb)
Point of order. There is no indication that there is any buy of the B-variant at all from our government. The first indication I have of any mention of the VTOL variant is an AOL article, not any governmental source.
Delete2nd point of order. With the long in service time of the F-35, Singapore has instead opted to increase its F-15 fleet to a total of 32 units, which means that as of today, 23rd of Aug 2013, there is no confirmed F-35 buy at all.
The government is still fence sitting on this one. "Prove before buying" is their motto.
I think countries that operate LHD's or Helicopter carriers wouldn't mind having F-35B's to provide top cover for Apaches,Cobra's, Tigers, Seahawks, Chinook and Osprey's. Countries that are looking to build LHD's now would probably want an LHD that is F-35B certified. I would not be surprised if Japan operates F-35B's as top cover for their Main helicopter force of Osprey's, Apaches, Seahawks and Cobras. If they did that, I would not be surprise if other countries follow that formula. Australia is a prime example of their LHD that will operate NH-90's, Tigers, Chinooks and Seahawks. I would not be surprise if they added F-35B's as well. For some countries that can't afford Big deck carriers, an LHD would be their next best thing.
ReplyDeletei counter that type of thinking with the idea that LHDs and real light carriers are two different beasts. no one likes to talk about the Cavour but its the nearest thing to a light carrier around until the UK floats its ship.
Deletethe UK's carrier is markedly different from an LHD in several ways. that difference is important and why it won't flex into the LHD as easily as a purpose built design.
its another reason why the America class LHD is having difficulty. because its essentially a light carrier being asked to perform an LHD function and will not flex easily into fulfilling both roles.
I think for some countries who want a big deck carrier and an Amphibious assault ship. An LHD may fit the bill for some countries, who want to get in on the Carrier game. It could be a conventional carrier or Helicopter carrier with Apaches,Cobra's, Tigers, Seahawks, Chinook and Osprey's. Some countries such as Australia can operate an LHD with Tigers, Seahawks, NH-90's and possibly F-35B's. I would think that an LHD can be a flex ship for Sea control, Amphibious assault and even for HA/DAR.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the American philosophy is to take into account.
ReplyDeleteIn the 70s the Carter administration wanted to replace the super aircraft carrier with the smallest carrier aircraft, the US-Navy solution that was not good, but for other marine yes.
Adding up these ideas with the "so-operandi" of the Marines, I think this is the right path to follow, such as Australia is doing and Spain cone the new LHD.
Britain in 2011 in Libya did not need its Harrier, because the air cover was secured by aircraft on land bases Italian (Sicily and Pantelleria, in addition to U.S. aircraft carrier).
Japan reminds me of what has been done in Italy in 1985, time as launching the Giuseppe Garibaldi "cruiser-anti-submarine helicopter carrier", then transformed in 1989 in a small aircraft carrier.
In your comments no one has mentioned that the future of aerial warfare, in addition to helicopters and F35 and CUAV (air combat robot).
Excuse my poor english
All you need is an small electromagnetic lunch system and an small advanced arresting gear to transform those small ships in real carriers.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=RqU-ng0G_Z8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.displayPlatform&key=650609CF-A54F-4DDA-8181-312B7555C194