Will the F35 bring small "Harrier Carriers" back to the concept spotlight?
Probably not.
>>29325692
Well perhaps not for the British but we already know that the marines want to be able to launch then of of LHDs
Probably
>>29325692
Unlikely.
Even with the higher efficiency of the F-35B over the Harrier, very short take off distance and no ramp mean really shitty fuel efficiency and MTOW.
Being unable to do rolling vertical landings shits on your maximum bringback weight.
Theres also the fact that small carriers are inefficient as fuck, both in terms of flight ops and cost.
>>29325692
for states with smaller budgets yes. Its a good way to get as much mileage out of the F35 B without having to invest in giant carriers which might be too much for countries such as Australia, Britain or even (if we could actually reach 2% GDP on our defense spending) Canada
But a full sized carrier will always trump the heli carriers.
What if the Izumo was upgraded to carry ~10 F35B?
Theres no point building small carriers
Whats needed is cheap, ultra low crew, diesel powered, super carriers
>>29325692
No, the f-35 still isn't as effective at anti surface warfare as other platforms, and straight up can't do anti sub warface which is the biggest threat (outside of possible chinese missile zerg rush) to carrier groups.
>>29325800
USMC LHD's aren't small in the least.
>>29325692
>9 total aircraft
Why even bother.
>>29325866
They are for US navy carrier doctrine.
>>29325836
If you have a small budget its far better to just focus on ground troops
An armored division is more useful than a shitty light carrier.
>>29325836
>Too much for Britian
>a nation currently building two 70,000t displacement carriers
anon
>>29325894
But they're nowhere near the size of the "Harrier Carrier" concept.
>>29325862
>anti sub warface
>inb4 harrier carrier submarines
>>29325891
A tiny aircraft carrier is better than no aircraft carrier.
>>29325894
..and?
Surprise surprise anon, you use different assets in different ways
Reminds me of the PrÃncipe de Asturias, probably one of the most perfect little carriers ever made.
Twelve harriers plus their associated helicopters all on a ship less than 17,000 tons loaded.
>>29325940
...No, a tiny aircraft carrier is insufficient for its role.
They're so cost inefficient that the money spent on a 9-aircraft (which would be in reality, 5) carrier would be far more effectively placed elsewhere.
>>29325941
I know. I wasn't saying they should be carriers, only that if they were carriers they would indeed be small.
It's like the Japanese Helicopter Destroyers. They work great for ASW and for protecting carrier battle groups, which is basically the role they take on during joint exercises.
>>29325951
Love the design of the lift at the rear of the flight deck
>>29325966
I've heard this meme repeated many times
But it's just not fucking true in the slightest
Meanwhile the new fords cost 10+ billion each
>>29325968
Considering they use their LHD's as carriers it's not a new or unexpected concept.
>>29325951
Dominaremos las olas
>>29326003
How many times has someone told you that an air wing of nine aircraft isn't worth the ship cost.
>>29326003
Its entirely true, dippy.
>>29326003
Eh, Royal Navy would like a word.
>>29325866
technically they're navy
>>29326003
except he is entirely right
but i will wait for pt boats with vls/ bring back bb, gliders or so on reply
>>29325905
but for countries like Australia or Canada, force projection is more important than having a large ground force.
>>29325907
true, I was talking about countries with smaller militaries. Probably should have used another example such as UAE or Egypt
>>29325905
Debatable if you are in a sea full of subs.
>>29326059
9 aircraft isn't really sufficient for force projection.
Availability means you're actually running 5 or 6, and not having room for AEW means you're just asking for it.
>>29326027
>>29326038
>>29326044
>>29326057
No
It would be a question of cost & crew of the ship.
Operating fighter-bombers off carriers built to commercial standards would be cheaper than spending billions on foreign airbases that are abandoned when the war is done.
>>29326077
true.
Only counter to that I have is (and i'll admit im moving the goalposts on this) that it allows for countries to contribute to larger task forces and allows for them to force project more, even if its less than what would be considered a preferable amount of force.
>>29325940
All of the sudden my childhood was shit
>>29326059
to operate carrier, as a proper carrier be it light, fleet or nuclear supper one
nation needs to meet very specific requirements
1. budget - even light carrier (and we are not talking about full retard ones think 20k t 20 aircraft, 12 f-35) is not something cheap and it will not be prioritized over other branches
escort is expensive infrastructure even more, training takes time and money
2. actual need for a carrier
be it overseas territories, ambitions or international responsibilities
3. political will
will all this you will find only handful of nation that would fit in and most of them already have carrier or are planning to operate f-35 from flat decks
>>29326103
>off carriers built to commercial standards
Oh snap, you're one of those guys.
>why can't we just uparmor a panamax and give it 16" guns guise?
>>29326103
Escorted by Glider BBs right, fagotron?
>>29326155
?
What are you saying?
For the US, using their current ship building doctrine, a light carrier would be pointless as it would end up costing 5 billion dollars.
For a country that is able to keep costs undercontrol, it would be very practical.
Even for a carrier that only holds 9 aircraft.
>>29326166
>not using hydrofoil fitted Iowas
>>29325985
Shitty place to put one, from a practical perspective. All they need is one spastic pilot to twitch on approach and *kablooey*
Cruise missiles for AD suppression, Long range AA replaces TOPCAP, small UAVs that can STOBAR off a helicopter destroyer or attack helos replace strike aircraft and loitering aircraft.
Strike carriers should be deprecated; they are huge mission-critical multi-valence targets, and they CAN now be replaced.
>>29325851
>diesel powered, super carriers
I'd think that nuclear power would be the only option for something that big and heavy.
>>29325940
Is it really? China only wants a carrier so they can say that they're park of the big kid's club, but they don't serve any practical use unless you intend to be a global power.
>>29326315
I don't think you know how harriers work
>>29327965
I think that a small nation with a small budget would rather have a small carrier than no carrier.
>>29328007
A small nation with a small budget doesn't have any reason to operate far enough from home to need a carrier, though.
>>29327965
Queen Elizabeth class is diesel powered, mainly because of the major asspain of things that nuclear power brings.
Infrastructure, manpower, training, designing, not being able to vist certain ports... all of it wasn't worth it for the British.
>>29328024
Depends, they might want a helicopter ASW asset like Japan has or what Britain had with their older carrier class.
Which F35 is Japan buying? They have "carriers".
>>29328032
The "supercarrier" with the ski jump? I wouldn't exactly hold that up as the best designed ship to set sail...I'd almost say it's on par with the Vasa.
>>29328100
shhhh, those are destroyers ;)
>>29328100
IIRC, only A(s) so far.
No known plans for operating B(s).
>>29328119
The term supercarrier is arbitrary as fuck, so whatever.
But I realise that meme opinions are meme opinions.
>>29328184
It's a bit hard to take their claim that it's a supercarrier seriously when it doesn't have a catapult.
>>29328223
That's your own opinion.
And I don't think anywhere seriously makes the requirement for something to be a "supercarrier" by whether it has a catapult or not. I only see this retarded thinking on /k/.
>>29328184
Japan is prohibited from operating aircraft carriers, so that in itself inhibits their purchase of the F35B to some degree.
Though they could circumvent that by using Osumi class (not specifically an aircraft carrier as it carries amphibious units as well), but that would be kind of useless as they don't have enough Osumi class to justify placing an order or having space in the ship being taken up when they could easily have land based aircraft as their air support (because Osumi is "supposed" to be used to retake its home islands), and the deck would have to be modified to allow for the F35B
>>29328295
Not really. You could try and call it a supercarrier, but that wouldn't change the fact that it's just a bigger Invincible-class with no real improvements and will be vastly inferior to even the Charles de Gaulle in every respect because of this.
>>29328363
Yeah, really. Give me someone official on that, the supercarrier title is meaningless and is only used with tonnage, not being CTOL.
And are you seriously claiming that a new design has no improvements over 50 year design? Fuck off retard.
French were picking QE design for their next carrier if that gives you any hints of how CdG is going.
But I mean, snub away at those two meme things because you don't know much else.
Why do British ships usually have a half-width ski jump, then a flat bit off to the side?
Why not just make the whole front a ski jump?
>>29328552
It's a good question and I think only navy flyers could tell us.
>>29328512
>And are you seriously claiming that a new design has no improvements over 50 year design?
Aside from electronics, yeah. It's still using the same substandard takeoff system as the Invincible.
>>29328602
You're an idiot.
>>29328655
Says the one trying to defend a ski-jump carrier.
>>29326166
it had fucking better be
>>29327965
>China only wants a carrier so they can say that they're park of the big kid's club
nah, they intend to use them to fill in the gaps between those island chains they're fortifying.
>>29328742
Considering that they still can't make engines of their own to get their jets off the decks without taking a swim immediately afterwards, they've got a long way to go if that's their goal.
>>29328784
no doubt, but they tend to work towards long term goals like that.
>>29325851
There are very real lower limits to how much you can drop the crew of something with a 1,000 foot runway, especially when you need to manage a 400 megawatt power plant and a 80 craft air wing.
You simply can't do it on the cheap.
>>29328032
Range and sustained speed don't matter much when it will spend all your time tied up to the dock at Portsmouth.
>>29325940
Not necessarily. If you are a tinpot third world despotism or developing country your real problem is "Will America and NATO kick my shit in today? What about my neighbors? Terrorists?".
A light carrier won't stop the Americans, hell it would be a dress rehearsal to us for a new world war.
It probably won't stop your neighbors from blitzing across your border.
It won't stop terrorists.
Unless you want a lot of power projection it's kind of useless.
>>29326104
This could be a decent use, like for say Canada, Japan, Germany, or Australia to pitch in more for international peace missions.
Not for a true war necessarily, but against developing nations and isis I suppose it could have its uses.
>>29327965
>I'd think that nuclear power would be the only option for something that big and heavy.
Dude, all of the biggest ships on the ocean are diesel powered, a lot of them with at least 50% heavier operational weights.
>>29325836
>Too much for the RN
Only if they aren't trying.
>>29329061
Sounds kind of like a guy with a quarter acre lot buying a lawn tractor just to lend it to his neighbor with 10 acres.
>>29325692
No, in fact given the Fail-35's record so far it might just drag Amphibs DOWN a peg.
The f-35 is so mechanically complex that its more effective to put them on super carriers. Otherwise you have to divide maintenance crews evenly over a larger number of ships.
the concept is neat, but 40,000t range is probably the best value for carriers.
Itty bitty harrier carriers are so cute though :3
>>29328983
This is based upon what?
>>29328552
>Why not just make the whole front a ski jump?
That would waste space that could be used for a fighter jet or helicopter
>>29328223
>It's a bit hard to take their claim that it's a supercarrier seriously when it doesn't have a catapult.
The term "supercarrier" refers to displacement, i.e. an aircraft carrier over 65,000 tonnes is a supercarrier. Also the idea that the CdG is better than the QE just because it has a catapult is fucking hilarious. Given the choice between those I wouldn't choose the CdG over the QE in a million years.
>>29331100
ITTY BITTY BABY
ITTY BITTY BOAT
Hey, are trimaran or catamaran carriers a good idea?
Would that make it impossible to sink via torpedoes detonating beneath the keel?
>>29325692
That, and a boost in technology for crash search parties.
Hey, guys can F35s refuel while hovering?
>>29331499
Almost
Being back dem dazzler paint!
>>29331514
There is something pleasing about this clusterfuck actually working
>>29331546
Makes you feel sorry for the Marines. Poor bastards have to pretend it's ready for IOC.
>>29328032
Nuclear SHOULD be cheaper & easier than diesel but it's been the domain of regulators and government for too long, so theres no advancement.
>>29329028
Just call yourself communist and then america will never invade
>>29331652
Not really when you consider manning issues and whatnot.
Navy is already struggling to find engineers, god help them if they planned for nuclear.
>>29331585
The V-22?
>>29326315
They're pilots anon. They don't let spastics be pilots.
>>29331652
>muh regulation
not really an issue for naval reactors beyond what is required to prevent accidents which is better than having constant reactor accidents like the soviets
>On 10 August 1985, the submarine was being refueled at the Chazhma Bay naval facility near Vladivostock. The submarine had been refueled and the reactor tank lid was being replaced. The lid was laid incorrectly and had to be lifted again with the control rods attached. A beam was supposed to prevent the lid from being lifted too far, but this beam was positioned incorrectly, and the lid with control rods were lifted too far up. At 10:55 AM the starboard reactor became supercritical, resulting in a criticality excursion of about 5x1018 fissions and a thermal/steam explosion. The explosion expelled the new load of fuel, destroyed the machine enclosures, rupturing the submarine's pressure hull and aft bulkhead, and partially destroyed the fuelling shack, with the shack's roof falling 70 meters away in the water. A fire followed which was extinguished after 4 hours
blyat yuri yuo have abused glorious soviet technology of beam and destroyed refueling shed
>>29330335
>>29327965
>I'd think that nuclear power would be the only option for something that big and heavy.
Nuke is actually a very hard way to do it. It comes into it's own when you need a strategic platform that can be deployed for very long periods, but it's still entirely dependent on a long logistics train to bring in aircraft parts, hydraulic oil, fuel for the escorts, food, other repair parts, etc. Eventually, there's just too much broken shit to stay deployed any longer.
Then again, I was on Enterprise, the First and the Fuckedest, so I may be biased (pulling in with only 5 of 8 reactors up, and a fucking rudder jammed. What a disgrace).
>>29331799
G E T T O P R I S E
Eating up da sandbank.
>>29325692
Just use Amphibious Assualt Craft
>>29325692
>H_K
Isn't he a ThinkDefence poster?
I always suspected that there was at least one TD poster here.
>>29331799
Surprisingly the carriers that were permanently on station in the first Gulf War were all conventional
>>29329112
It's a bit of a prestige thing though, lots of nations want to punch above their weight class so that international missions are less of a clusterfuck.
I mean with the UN now how would you expect them to fight in a coalition against something like isis? It would be ugly.
A lot of countries probably don't want to rely on America for security ops.
>>29328319
Which is the clause thatt prohibits them ?
Also, hopefully Abe re militarises, and makes Japan Great Again.
>>29331975
Article 9.
Carriers count as offensive weapons.
>>29331965
I wonder how much fuel a conventional carried, and if they have refill their bunker while out. I imagine refueling inside the Gulf would carry a risk of locals and their shenanigans, but so does a Hormuz transit.
>>29332123
Depends on the class.
But I'm sure there were more than enough escorts for logistical ships for easy resupply.
>>29331514
>Photoshop
>>29332513
There's been a few studies by the USMC and Royal Navy into using the V-22 for refuelling.
Even AEW.
>>29332527
Not while the lift fan is in use.
Ridiculous.
>>29332534
Didn't state that.
Only stated about the existence of said studies.
>>29326103
I'll just leave this here to remind people just how mind-meltingly out of touch with reality this anon is.
>>29326235
>For a country that is able to keep costs undercontrol, it would be very practical.
He's like Donald trump:
>NO, GUIZE, IT'LL BE WAY CHEAPER WHEN I DO IT. I WON'T TELL YOU HOW, BUT IT'LL BE FANTASTIC. IT'LL BE BEAUTIFUL.
>>29325692
no, but there's the hope that a larger V-22 could replace C-2 greyhounds which would mean that existing carriers would carry a lot more things
in 50-75ish years, catapults will be gone and replaced with a fully VTOL fleet
>>29327965
>but they don't serve any practical use unless you intend to be a global power.
this is a fairly important/practical thing though
>>29327965
>I'd think that nuclear power would be the only option for something that big and heavy.
With nuclear powered carriers you skip some replenishment at sea... at pretty big price tag when it comes to refueling overhauls with nuclear reactor and post service nuclear waste management.
Brits came up with conclusion that aircraft carrier and few fleet oilers and fuckloads of diesel fuel are cheaper than couple less replenishment ships and nuclear reactor.
Only place where nuclear power is only option are arctic ice breakers and submarines.
>>29334499
>in 50-75ish years, catapults will be gone and replaced with a fully VTOL fleet
lel
>>29334499
>in 50-75ish years, catapults will be gone and replaced with a fully VTOL fleet
Nope.
>>29334599
>shitty kitty
glorious
>>29334599
If the navy can find a VTOL replacement for C-2s then why bother continuing to use catapults? It's expensive (in terms of training and servicing). There's no reason not to drop them, unless you want to land something like pic related on them. 50 years ago we got the Harrier, now we have both the F-35 and V-22. In 50 years it's not unreasonable to assume that VTOL tech will advance much further.
>>29334689
Because fuel efficiency is a thing that is never going away, anon.
As expensive as a catapult is, having a lift fan assembly is every singe jet is more expensive.
Its like having a small refinery on every car and gas stations only supplying crude oil. You can make those refineries as efficient as you like but they're still not going to be as good as doing it elsewhere.
>>29331514
The fuck, since when can it light the afterburner while in hover mode?
>>29334742
again,
>photoshop
>>29334689
>There's no reason not to drop them
The ability to launch an aircraft with a full load instead of a partial load seems like a pretty compelling reason to keep catapults.
>>29334657
Kitty wasn't main point in it... worlds largest and most expensive royal yacht
>>29334689
>In 50 years it's not unreasonable to assume that VTOL tech will advance much further.
Fuel efficiency. STOVL aircraft loses a lot of fuel and payload in exchange for short take off and landing. Catapult is more efficient, even it means reduced sortie rate, as it allows more heavily armed aircraft and longer range for aircraft.
Harrier or F-35B are brilliant if your navy can't afford proper carrier and to complement actual carriers if your navy can afford 'em. This the part where we are going to diesel submarine territory. The reason why US doesn't have 'em despite diesel/AIP submarine being better in shit like intel gathering missions... low cost reasonable performance alternative might endanger budget for high performance and strategic deterrence submarines.
>>29331767
You're describing training issues.
>>29334581
>>29334599
WHY NOT?
The only thing that would need catapults are interceptors, craft devoted to insane speed with no VTOL in their mission.
>>29334883
>Harrier or F-35B are brilliant if your navy can't afford proper carrier and to complement actual carriers if your navy can afford 'em.
What about a toy carrier with a ramp, but launching something like Skyhawks Kuznetsov style?
Seems like you'd get some of the efficiency of a regular takeoff without the pricetag of a catapult (there's still weight restrictions, but they might be reduced, especially if you can take off empty then re-fuel in the air)
>>29337817
If you can't afford a proper carrier, guess what else you probably won't be keen to burn money doing, considering its literally one of the most expensive logistics mission you can do?
Mid air refuelling.
>>29337910
Something something Falklands Black Buck
