Naval Pictures Forecastle: Laying siege to the poop deck!

[ANS Kamas P81]

One mark in the F-35's favor is that it can take that 4000 pound load in a slick configuration, purely on internal ordnance.  That means not giving up what stealth aspects it has, compared to the Rafale.

[Kidd]

I did a double-take at the F-35 count myself.

So for all the furore about the LPH vs LPD issue, at least the USN got 2 baby carriers out of it eh?

CV-66 was the first model I put together. Atrociously done, but I remember her fondly.

[Feenix74]

needs a ski ramp

Yep, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide looking like good forward planning for our squids.

[beachhead1985]

awesome

[DoctorMonkey]

Yep, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide looking like good forward planning for our squids.

You could see if the USN would do swapsies?

[Wrangler]

You could see if the USN would do swapsies?

No, because the ship's flight deck not strong enough to handle the heat that the F/A-35Bs generates. Aussie didn't want pay for that or the Spanish didn't were not aware of the issues that supersonic vtol causes.  I think, if had the Harrier been a earlier Supersonic Jet type it would properly have the same issues.
Ships like the HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide would need remanufactured Harrier Jump Jet or a new design that's powered by a subsonic engine.

That or they were planning to operate subsonic UCAV from the ship like the X-47 Refueling jet as such.

[wantec]

I did a double-take at the F-35 count myself.

So for all the furore about the LPH vs LPD issue, at least the USN got 2 baby carriers out of it eh?

CV-66 was the first model I put together. Atrociously done, but I remember her fondly.

Then you might enjoy this article http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8798/heres-the-usmcs-plan-for-lightning-carriers-brimming-with-f-35bs?iid=sr-link4

It shows the potential to fit 22 F-35Bs on a LHA.

[Nightlord01]

No, because the ship's flight deck not strong enough to handle the heat that the F/A-35Bs generates. Aussie didn't want pay for that or the Spanish didn't were not aware of the issues that supersonic vtol causes.  I think, if had the Harrier been a earlier Supersonic Jet type it would properly have the same issues.
Ships like the HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide would need remanufactured Harrier Jump Jet or a new design that's powered by a subsonic engine.

That or they were planning to operate subsonic UCAV from the ship like the X-47 Refueling jet as such.

Not true at all. The deck can't handle the heat because it's not fitted with the specialised coating needed to launch vectored thrust aircraft, this was a deliberate decision based on the fact that it is an Amphibious Assault ship, not a carrier. The deck also lacks arrestor gear and other necessary fittings for fixed wing flight operations, once again, a deliberate decision. It's a really cool deck to walk around on, but when I was on there all I could think of was whipping around it in a motorised go cart and eventually going soaring off the ski ramp. :-)

[Kidd]

Then you might enjoy this article http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8798/heres-the-usmcs-plan-for-lightning-carriers-brimming-with-f-35bs?iid=sr-link4

It shows the potential to fit 22 F-35Bs on a LHA.

Interesting O0

[wantec]

Not true at all. The deck can't handle the heat because it's not fitted with the specialised coating needed to launch vectored thrust aircraft, this was a deliberate decision based on the fact that it is an Amphibious Assault ship, not a carrier. The deck also lacks arrestor gear and other necessary fittings for fixed wing flight operations, once again, a deliberate decision. It's a really cool deck to walk around on, but when I was on there all I could think of was whipping around it in a motorised go cart and eventually going soaring off the ski ramp. :-)

The US America-Class LHAs and the USS Wasp don't have arresting gear for the F-35s, that's why they need the coating, for the vertical landings. What I'm not totally sure about is if the coating is needed for the full length of the deck for takeoffs or just for the rear landing zone. During takeoff the rear exhaust is angled roughly 45° downward, which results in less heat & loads on the deck, maybe enough that the coating isn't needed.

[JadeHellbringer]

The US America-Class LHAs and the USS Wasp don't have arresting gear for the F-35s, that's why they need the coating, for the vertical landings. What I'm not totally sure about is if the coating is needed for the full length of the deck for takeoffs or just for the rear landing zone. During takeoff the rear exhaust is angled roughly 45° downward, which results in less heat & loads on the deck, maybe enough that the coating isn't needed.

CURRENT operations have only utilized the rear deck area, but that doesn't mean it will remain that way- treating the entire deck is probably wise in case plans have to change (like, say, damage to the aft deck forcing the forward area to be used instead, or a really mean poodle is hanging around the fantail).

[kato]

What I'm not totally sure about is if the coating is needed for the full length of the deck for takeoffs or just for the rear landing zone.

At least on USS Wasp it was apparently only applied to "landing spot 9" (experimentally), on USS America apparently for the aft third of the flight deck and around four landing spots where MV-22 operations would point their exhaust (although in these four there's a time limit on how long the Ospreys can run their tilt-rotors to not damage the deck).

The main problem for operations apparently isn't the F-35B, but the MV-22. With the F-35B you can mitigate damage by applying a slight bit of forward thrust to creep across the deck, thus not pointing your exhaust at the same point during the whole time. With the MV-22, landing entirely vertically due to the tilt-rotors and always pointing the exhausts of their nacelles straight down, apparently even just keeping the engines running on the deck (like you might do even in flight prep) for 15 minutes will melt a non-coated deck.

[worktroll]

Nice comparison - Bismark, Iowa, and Yamato side-by-side.



The design compromises to let the Iowas go through the Canal are obvious - not only the flat sides, but the increased length providing partial compensation.

(Sudden mad thought - see the aerodynamic spike on the Trident. Wonder if a hydrodynamic spike would work? ;) )

Also, note the turrets on the Iowa appear larger than those of the Yamato. That's got to help with ease of use & repair.

Lastly, the three different AA philosophies. Admittedly, not entirely fair to Bismark.

[Nightlord01]

The US America-Class LHAs and the USS Wasp don't have arresting gear for the F-35s, that's why they need the coating, for the vertical landings. What I'm not totally sure about is if the coating is needed for the full length of the deck for takeoffs or just for the rear landing zone. During takeoff the rear exhaust is angled roughly 45° downward, which results in less heat & loads on the deck, maybe enough that the coating isn't needed.

I wasn't going to go into that level of detail, but hey, here goes!

The coating is still required for any decline in vector, it's just much lighter for STOL. VTOL takes a much heavier coating, and honestly, if STOL is available, you're an idiot not to use it, but that's for another time.

Nice comparison - Bismark, Iowa, and Yamato side-by-side.

The design compromises to let the Iowas go through the Canal are obvious - not only the flat sides, but the increased length providing partial compensation.

(Sudden mad thought - see the aerodynamic spike on the Trident. Wonder if a hydrodynamic spike would work? ;) )

Also, note the turrets on the Iowa appear larger than those of the Yamato. That's got to help with ease of use & repair.

Lastly, the three different AA philosophies. Admittedly, not entirely fair to Bismark.

I remember visiting the Mighty Mo in Pearl, I've never seen such an awe inspiring sight as when I first turned around on her forecastle. Amazing girls, such beautiful ladies.

[Feenix74]

At least on USS Wasp it was apparently only applied to "landing spot 9" (experimentally), on USS America apparently for the aft third of the flight deck and around four landing spots where MV-22 operations would point their exhaust (although in these four there's a time limit on how long the Ospreys can run their tilt-rotors to not damage the deck).

The main problem for operations apparently isn't the F-35B, but the MV-22. With the F-35B you can mitigate damage by applying a slight bit of forward thrust to creep across the deck, thus not pointing your exhaust at the same point during the whole time. With the MV-22, landing entirely vertically due to the tilt-rotors and always pointing the exhausts of their nacelles straight down, apparently even just keeping the engines running on the deck (like you might do even in flight prep) for 15 minutes will melt a non-coated deck.

That is interesting. A few years ago, when I had an involvement on the periphery of the project planning for the introduction of the F-35, there was also a problem with the exhaust of the APU in the F-35 pointing downwards causing a problem under each point the F-35 would be parked at. Hopefully, they finally got around to changing the design in the production models to having the APU exhaust vent upwards instead.

[Wrangler]

It's too bad France won't consider using the F-35.  They're having so many problems budgeting a 2nd carrier, originally they were supposed to work with Britain to create a third Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier, but they bowed out.  I think the issue aside from pride, was cost of up keeping nuclear carrier.  I am at a loss why, I believe it was cost for the ship. France has it’s own interests on how a ship should be but I think pride of not building it themselves hurts them as well.
Outside the US no one but France has such a ship.  With France working so closely with Italy, they could take lesson from them and make smaller Jump Carrier instead, but that would be mean they can't use the own home brew fighter jet which is a conventional design.  Italy's Navy seems to have gone from small Harrier carrier, to a larger one and now their working a LHD which will essentially replace their older Jump Carrier.

The Italian Aircraft Carrier Cavour with the USS Harry S Truman and France’s one and only carrier, the Charles de Gaulle in the background.

[JadeHellbringer]

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that it's not as simple as saying 'build the de Gaulle again!'. With the exception of the Kuznetsov, it's hard to think of a recent carrier that has had more engine trouble. Sometimes that just happens and one ship in an otherwise excellent class has some hoodoo going on with its systems (the USS Oregon City comes to mind), but... when it's the lead ship? What if you build a second ship and she has the same 'no worky worky' problems? That it's the actual design of the engines/ship and not just bad luck the first time around?

That means a major redesign of the powerplant, at the very least, to avoid the issues from the de Gaulle. That's expensive, time-consuming, and still comes with no guarantees that it will work right. The QE-class ship idea was a bad one to begin with as well- it makes sense in many areas, but the French seem determined to stick with a nuclear power plant (for reasons that aren't entirely clear, frankly), and that means either settling for a ship they don't want or finding a way to shoehorn a reactor into a design not intended for it- in which case we're back to major redesign work and might as well have just built another de Gaulle to begin with.

Leaving aside the questions about why France needs carriers to begin with (which wander too close to Rule 4 for my taste), at this point they may be better off designing something new to replace the de Gaulle down the road a ways, building two of them if they really feel they need two ships, and for now getting by with the de Gaulle and the knowledge that they can rely on American and (now) British flight decks to fill in the gaps where they need.

[Sabelkatten]

From what I've read the French wants nuclear power for range (world power, darn it! ;D ) and absolutely wants catapults (a much more sensible requirement IMHO).

So even if the British could have talked them out of nuke power it would have required the QE class to be built for catapults. But the EMALS looked pretty shaky back then, which means they would have needed a steam plant. And we know how well such a power setup is working for the Russians...

IMHO nuclear did make more sense for the British, but they couldn't really afford it. So what ya gonna do?

[Ghost0402]

From what I've read the French wants nuclear power for range (world power, darn it! ;D ) and absolutely wants catapults (a much more sensible requirement IMHO).

So even if the British could have talked them out of nuke power it would have required the QE class to be built for catapults. But the EMALS looked pretty shaky back then, which means they would have needed a steam plant. And we know how well such a power setup is working for the Russians...

IMHO nuclear did make more sense for the British, but they couldn't really afford it. So what ya gonna do?

Ask the Americans for a couple of reactors?

[Weirdo]

France has a LOT of overseas holdings, it's no surprise to me that they put as much emphasis as they do on naval power. And that's on top of the fact that the Med is the only thing between their shores and some of the nastier hot spots in today's world.

[Sabelkatten]

I think the French could manage without nuclear range (they did with their older carriers after all). But as noted - catapults...

Ask the Americans for a couple of reactors?

I don't think the reactors themselves are the problems (after all the British have naval reactors for their subs), it's the cost of running nuclear ships. AFAIK that's still significantly higher than conventional power (which is one reason we don't see nuclear-powered civilian ships).

[snewsom2997]

France has a LOT of overseas holdings, it's no surprise to me that they put as much emphasis as they do on naval power.

The way I look at it, those island holdings are basically aircraft carriers.

[Kidd]

IMHO, the French are generally highly pragmatic and conservative in defence spending, and their defence programs have much to be admired. The downside of that attitude is seeming unwillingness to take very expensive risks such as committing to 2 carriers, which is really what is needed to keep at least 1 flattop deployed at all times.

As a footnote, the Brits opted not for a nuclear carrier not just because of cost, but reasoning also that it allows them access to more ports as most do not allow nuclear vessels to dock... plus saving a lot more room in the design.

The way I look at it, those island holdings are basically aircraft carriers.

Apparently islands with airfields are the exception rather than the norm. Hence the importance of LPDs to the US, UK and France.

[Weirdo]

Those islands likely don't all need military assistance at the same time. Nuclear carriers are expensive as all hell, but it honestly would not surprise me if someone were to tell me that it's still cheaper to build/operate a nuke flattop and send it around the world as needed than to build equip and man military bases at all of those holdings. The manpower savings alone would be immense.

[kato]

than to build equip and man military bases at all of those holdings. The manpower savings alone would be immense.

Unlike other countries*, France does maintain a relatively strong on-site patrol presence in every overseas territory. Typically these consist of:

• army assets (token force: one mixed regiment of infantry with some cavalry assets with around 1,000 men, usually split to two or three bases)
• navy assets (token force: one patrol frigate with helicopter, one frigate-sized support/supply ship with added patrol role and one Gendarmerie 20m patrol craft for local policing)
• air assets (token force: 2 CN-235 transport aircraft, 2 SA-330 helicopters)

That across six domestic theaters plus a given number of permanent foreign bases, with some variation.

* compare the above to e.g. British overseas troops, which e.g. for the Caribbean holdings amounts to a single batallion of locally conscripted (!) troops in a single location.

[Wrangler]

Unlike other countries*, France does maintain a relatively strong on-site patrol presence in every overseas territory. Typically these consist of:

• army assets (token force: one mixed regiment of infantry with some cavalry assets with around 1,000 men, usually split to two or three bases)
• navy assets (token force: one patrol frigate with helicopter, one frigate-sized support/supply ship with added patrol role and one Gendarmerie 20m patrol craft for local policing)

Yeah, the Floréal-class frigate was purposely built to handle these overseas locations and provide a light Frigate support to those territories.
FS Vendemiaire


As side note, i wonder if their fleet or the British would have been bit larger handling these colonies they let go.
I haven't read history much how the colonies were after World War II that led them to being free. France properly would had the budget to maintain larger fleet most likely.[/list]

[Weirdo]

As side note, i wonder if their fleet or the British would have been bit larger handling these colonies they let go.
I haven't read history much how the colonies were after World War II that led them to being free. France properly would had the budget to maintain larger fleet most likely.[/list]

I would really love to know what it is you just said here...

[Wrangler]

I would really love to know what it is you just said here...

I was saying that i wonder what the French and British fleets would have been like in this modern age if the UK/France still retained their Colonies. 

[DoctorMonkey]

I was saying that i wonder what the French and British fleets would have been like in this modern age if the UK/France still retained their Colonies. 

The Royal Navy has always been there to keep the maritime trade flowing; the Empire was really just a trade system writ large.
The Royal Navy had the pre-WW2 cruisers to achieve this (hence the shift to light cruisers from heavy cruisers).
I'm not sure what retaining the Empire would have done to that.


France is a bit different as they turned a lot of little bits of "empire" into France with no difference between the mainland in Europe and the little nuggets of rock scattered around the world.

[kato]

I haven't read history much how the colonies were after World War II that led them to being free.

French colonies that became peacefully independent were mostly inland. There would likely be an additional "overseas flotilla" like those described in the Gulf of Guinea and possibly another based around Senegal.

However, France does in fact maintain a patrol fleet - based in Brest and Toulon in l'hexagon, currently composed of nine D'Estienne d'Orves corvettes - that when not patrolling European EEZs does continuous patrols, port visits and e.g. joint training in that particular area too (there's pretty much always one of them somewhere in West Africa).

Below: Commandant l'Herminier off the coast of Sierra Leone.


Their original ASW outfit was mostly removed about 10 years ago after they were relegated to the patrol role. Armament it's now pretty much identical to the Floreal class patrol frigates (100mm main, two 20mm, Simbad for air defence), just with two twin 550mm ASW torpedo tubes left over instead of the - rather symbolic - two Exocets the Floreals carry. Crew size is virtually identical, main difference is range - where the larger purpose-built Floreals beat the D'Estienne d'Orves threefold. Oh, and the Panther helo on the Floreal of course.