[Logged] Lightning (super)carriers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message

DESRON420 -> [Logged] Lightning (super)carriers (3/31/2021 4:55:08 AM)

I’m getting back into the Command series after a long while away, and I was looking at the rates at which different types of carrier could assemble strikes. I ended up really impressed at the rate that F-35Bs could sortie from the America-class because they don’t fool around with catapults or ski jumps, they just take off 5? at once from the Pads and go.

So here’s my first question: is that kind of mass VTOL takeoff realistic given the strike radius assumed for the F-35B? I thought that getting the listed strike radius and payload required a decent takeoff roll, but maybe I’m just wrong about that.

And then my second question comes out of looking at the strike ranges for those F-35Bs coming off the Lightning carriers, which are about the same as catapult launched Super Hornets. Of course the Super Hornet has short legs, but every CATOBAR argument boils down to the advantages of strike range and sortie rate. If the F-35B offers equivalent range to the Super Hornet, and the air ops modeled in Command aren’t imaginary, then it seems like the F-35B could offer a new alternative for the USN: the Lightning supercarrier.

This would be an old Nimitz-class, perhaps Nimitz herself, stripped of catapults and arresting gear and modified to handle F-35B deck operations. The issues with the America-class magazines and speed go away, the F-35Bs get 10+ more knots over the deck on takeoff and landing, the strike range works out the same, there’s cost savings from a big F-35B buy and from reduced complexity on future CVNs, the carrier air wing starts being able to refuel and rearm at forward bases, and all the manpower, damage control, and maintenance problems associated with CATOBAR go away. It feels like there’s a lot of wins there. Has anyone ever published a professional study on something like this?



Zanthra -> RE: Lightning (super)carriers (3/31/2021 6:28:51 AM)

Why operate such a large ship, when you don't need the deck space for takeoffs and landings? Why not spread the same number of planes across a number of LHAs? If there are problems with the speed or magazines, fix those in the next LHAs. The only reason the modern US supercarriers are as large as they are is to safely take off and land CATOBAR aircraft.

Also I don't think the game makes any determination of take off and landing distance based on the aircraft loaded weight. To be able to land vertically, the aircraft has to have the Take off and Landing distance set to 0, and that affects both.



guanotwozero -> RE: Lightning (super)carriers (3/31/2021 7:42:03 AM)

Yes as far as I can tell the takeoff physics is just a simplification. I'm often amused at the virtual plummet used to land again.

One advantage of a large aircraft is to centralise the engineering facilities, rather than dilute or duplicate the same thing over several ships.

BTW experience from the Falklands showed that V/STOL aircraft could operate from carriers in rough seas where the pitching would have prevented catapult launches. If we get weather effects added that might be an issue, then it would be worth improving the fuel modelling of different takeoff types.



tylerblakebrandon -> RE: Lightning (super)carriers (3/31/2021 12:12:12 PM)

The take off dynamics are simplified in CMO.

In normal ops on LHA/LHD's Harriers/F-35Bs use a rolling take off as shown below as it is less fuel intense that an actual VTO so fuel is conserved for a useful mission range and payload.

Ski jumps further increase fuel conservation in rolling take offs but with the available deck space would cost a helo spot.

CATOBAR does allow a greater payload to be carried not that every flight is carrying a maximum load.

Also supercarrier size is also a reflection of aircraft size and the desire to maintain a certain capacity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJEvTGXyq2E



thewood1 -> RE: Lightning (super)carriers (3/31/2021 2:09:49 PM)

A discussion on the CVL concept here also.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4980636



DESRON420 -> RE: Lightning (super)carriers (3/31/2021 2:59:08 PM)

Thanks, that's a great thread! Discusses a ton of other questions I'd thought about. Your identification of the AEW platform as the big question mark is spot on I think. The E-2D is a pretty amazing capability! Have there been other threads about this type of AEW platform? (In fact speak of the devil: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/royal-navys-new-merlin-crowsnest-aew-helicopter-enters-service-ahead-of-cgs21-deployment/)

One thing I've noticed is that (unless I'm missing something!) the normal LHA magazines are not well set up for a Lightning carrier role. Many F-35B stores are missing from the magazines and those that are available are in very short supply. Even the AMRAAMs are split so half are AIM-120Cs that aren't compatible with the F-35B. I think? the scenario editor can reconfigure this but I'd love to hear an estimate of the number of stores a Lightning carrier could bring in the sea control role as I don't really know how to estimate the different magazine volume requirements for safe shipboard storage of bombs, missiles, torpedoes, etc.

Also thanks very much tyler for the video.

Spent a little time watching F-35B takeoffs from America and it looks like a 600 foot takeoff run with the ship going 20-25 knots. Scale drawings of the Nimitz suggest plenty of space is available for runs starting both at the forward catapults and around the arrestor gear. Lots of room is left for vertical landings around the aft and sides of the ship. Air ops could get both simpler and more complex because planes can now land in more than one place and more than once at a time. I wonder how much performance they could get from full-carrier "short" takeoff runs that started from the arrestor gear and went past the forward catapults as that is about 900 feet and longer than an entire LHA.



Dimitris -> RE: Lightning (super)carriers (4/1/2021 7:35:32 AM)

Is this a request to make STOVL aircraft (like the F-35) be forced to use the runway/ski-jump facilities instead of taking off directly from the pads ?



DESRON420 -> RE: Lightning (super)carriers (4/1/2021 11:49:13 AM)

Sure! I'd love to see options for "STOVL loadouts" and "VTOL loadouts" and have aircraft with the former be forced to use runways/skijumps. Perhaps aircraft known for good STOL performance might be able to take off and land from shorter runways or damaged airstrips with lighter loads. It sounds relevant to East Asia with all the light carriers and artificial islands and so on.



tylerblakebrandon -> RE: Lightning (super)carriers (4/1/2021 11:59:42 AM)

Considering the historical example of the AV-8 deployment on USS Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1976, just deploying F-35Bs from CVN's as is could be a possibility if that was deemed necessary or desirable for the time/situation.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-time-when-av-8-harriers-deployed-aboard-a-fixed-win-1692022146

Also turning a CVN to a floating helo base has been done fairly recently (i.e. Post Cold War) as well.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-time-when-two-super-carriers-became-floating-army-h-1647968681



Gunner98 -> RE: Lightning (super)carriers (4/1/2021 1:52:14 PM)

quote:

Is this a request to make STOVL aircraft (like the F-35) be forced to use the runway/ski-jump facilities instead of taking off directly from the pads ?


I don't think so.

I suspect that the desire here is to reflect the reality that a ski-jump allows STOVL aircraft to carry heavier loadouts, but not to prevent them from vertical take-off.

I imagine this might be a bit of nightmare to code and predict: SHAR from a runway, from a pad, from a flat deck, from the 12@ ski-jump on Hermes vs the 6.5@ jump on the Invincible class. Yaks from a Kiev or Kuznetsov?

Not to mention international employment etc.

Not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze, but it would be nice.

B

Edit I suppose you would need to factor in wind across the deck as well, which would mean considering wind direction and speed, ship course and speed and sea state. This would affect all shipborne takeoffs though including helicopters etc. A big ask.



DESRON420 -> RE: Lightning (super)carriers (4/1/2021 3:15:00 PM)

A big ask for sure.

I found some fun public domain pics of (attempted) helicopter operations on USS Guadalcanal during Teamwork 92. Here's an improvised plywood snowplow (not directly linking the image cause it's huge)

https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/stillpix/330-cfd/1995/DN-SN-95-00782.jpeg



WSBot -> RE: Lightning (super)carriers (4/8/2021 7:16:52 PM)

0014479



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.453125