If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

[djolds1]

Back to "Jeeps". This is not semantics for me, it is clear difference in mission and capabilities. You CAN NOT do anything resembling useful between employing an LHA(D) "wing" verses a CVN "wing". They are two different animals.

So? What?

I must say I find your inability to call anything short of the grandeur and glory of a USN Supercarrier a "carrier" most puzzeling. The Cavour is a carrier. The Kutnetsov is a carrier. The Invincible is a carrier. The De Gaulle is a carrier. The fact that they do not measure up to your preferred standards does not give you the right to redefine the English language to reflect that.

Note my initial statement that you objected to:

USMC has been using amphibs as Jeep Carriers (CVEs) for decades.

Jeeps do not measure up to fleet carriers. STFW? How does that make them NOT CVs in anything more than convenient acronymical lies told to Congress?

One more fundamental issue with LHA(D), no catapult, no aressting gear, and no plan to ever install. This removes any ability to use heavy air, as such embarked on a CVN. The intro of F-35 will not change this.

And I have provided a historical example (Essex rebuilds) and technical example (Ski jump/catapult hybrids) for how this can be remedied to accomdate the COTL F-35C instead of the STOVL F-35B.

It will be employed the same way as AV-8s currently are from the amphib decks. If you are going to perstist in this argument, you may as well throw LPD-17 in as a "Jeep" carrier as well. In fact why not anything that can carry more than 2 fixed wing assets?

Were I God I would slowly rebuild and/or replace all amphibs and CVNs to a flattop/well deck LHA/CVL hybrid standard, a fleet of 40 or so LHA/CVL hybrids that can be multiply tasked and are capable of hosting COTL aircraft and enduring some losses while maintaining broad capability. However, I am not God.

And back to the basic point, WWII Jeep carriers were conceptualized, constructed for, and primarily employed in "E" duties. Where the "E" means Escort against Submarines.

You really are hung up on the moniker "Jeep carrier." As I said above, use CVL if you desire to insist on strict acronymical correctness.

If you want the US to come up with a "Light CV", then the Amphib is not it. It is not constucted to run a strike group battle, does not have the equivilent C2 a CVN does for it, and nor will it. Thus the idea of ESG's going by the wayside. Good idea, not practical to implement effectively in that construct. ESGs died a death of trying to manage stike group assets from a "Flagplot" that wasn't. One visit to a Big Deck "Flagplot" (not even what we call it really), and a CVN Flagplot, and you will get the point, while capabilities have some overlap, abilities do not. In fact, you can not run a MEU or MEB event from a CVN anymore than you can "fight" a strike group from a Big Deck.

Food for thought.

[ladajo]

My issue with using the word "Jeep" was in its orignal context, and several allusions to thereafter. It implied that they were considered Light Carriers.
In a sense of physical descriptive, yes. It the military minds of the day, and today, no. "Jeep" connotates the meaning of Anti-Submarine Warfare.
It may well be called semantics by some outside the professional community, but inside, it is a clear difference. If the disscusion wants to be about the utility of a future more numerous light carrier force, verses a less numerous heavy force as it is today, then you will find something of an advocate in me. In fact, just Thursday, I was assisting someone doing research for this very topic, and I related it across strike, amphibious and SOF lines as a future innovation.

see my quote:

And back to the basic point, WWII Jeep carriers were conceptualized, constructed for, and primarily employed in "E" duties. Where the "E" means Escort against Submarines.
Big Deck amphibs are considered Capital Warships, hust like CVNs by navy and national leadership. And rightly so, but they fill a completely different mission set, and to redefine that in a loose argument from a non-warfighting professional, based about possible alternate uses is wrong and IMO, is merely an exercise in future musings on "innovation" not the reality of today.

I have embarked and done operations on several flavours of "carriers", from no hanger LPDs, and foreign assets like Garibaldi and others, to US CVNs. I would guess I am way more familiar with the capabilities and limitations of these assets than most (99%) of the folks in this forum. I would wager that finding someone else here with my experience in diverse platforms US and others would be a challenge around here. I am not marketing my ego as it were, just trying to state a relevance of opinion base. Google does not equal professional experience and background. I do not begin to think I can match the physics of Prinns or Carter or Paul March, etc. These guys and others are professionals in the field.

The limiting factor in what makes a US Supercarrier "Super" is not its ability to carry a butt-ton of airframes. It is its ability to fight them and fight a Strike Group. This is where the clear line of difference falls between these ships and all others. It is not a matter of semantics or egotistical thinking. If you do not have the CVN, you do not have a strike group.
Calling other nations ships Supercarriers because they can carry a bunch of aircraft is not relevant. It is the synergistic effect to a force that the striking power AND C5IR brings and bonding of assets a CVN has. This is not any relation to the size of the deck or hangers.
The big issue I have with lumping beck deck amphibs in to this game, is they are not as capable to create this effect as a cvn due to both Hardware and people. We tried it, it was called ESG. It "worked", but that was more a political bosses feeder than deckplate reality. Thus, we have quietly done away with the "ESG", and not really advertised the fact. It is like the "crew swap concept". It was, "Hey Admiral, your idea is working GREAT! Oh, when are you going to retire? Just curious..."
I firmly believe the greatest measure of the effectiveness of leadership lays in what changes remain culturized after departure.
I agree that reducing the number of Supercarriers as an innovation of more flexible use more numerous smaller hybrids is worth exploring. The Marine Colonel and I that were discussing this last week both firmly agree. Even given that our take was the innovation would start from a re-definition of the amphibious force with an attempt to use SOF as the catalyst. The end result in our vision would be new hybrid platforms and new structures of the combat arms set and makeups to create a single module entity, where scaling occurs by adding more of them into a group. This single entity would be based around a single type of ship, that does not currently exist, but would most closely resemble a basing on the concepts rolled into the LPD17 class.

[rjaypeters]

J-20 preliminary analysis: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html

These people generally do a pretty good job.

[CaptainBeowulf]

I quote from your link:

"The aft fuselage, tailbooms, fins/strakes and axi-symmetric nozzles are not compatible with high stealth performance, but may only be stop-gap measures to expedite flight testing of a prototype. "

This indicates to me that the J-20 is either:

a) In an early stage of development
b) Has stealth characteristics only around the front/lower arc of the plane - it is a "cheap knock-off" stealth approach that is designed to get the plane closer than it would otherwise get before being detected, but is not intended to keep it virtually invisible until it reaches the enemy

In either case, not then a massive near-term threat. If (a) is true, all kinds of things can go wrong during development, so even if the intention is to replace the aft section with stealthier parts, that may be easier planned than done.

I recall many of the great Soviet tank scares that went on during the Cold War. IIRC, the T-72 was supposed to be some sort of super-tank, and the then-XM-1 would barely be able to match its performance, if at all. As it turned out, Saddam's T-72s in 1991 were basically target practice for Abrams tanks.

Ok, Soviet models might have had better C3I suites and targeting systems than those exported to Iraq, but still... not enough to radically change the exchange rate.

I approach fears of Chinese/Russian monster tanks/monster planes with a bit of a grain of salt. For now, wait and see.

[djolds1]

I recall many of the great Soviet tank scares that went on during the Cold War. IIRC, the T-72 was supposed to be some sort of super-tank, and the then-XM-1 would barely be able to match its performance, if at all. As it turned out, Saddam's T-72s in 1991 were basically target practice for Abrams tanks.

Ok, Soviet models might have had better C3I suites and targeting systems than those exported to Iraq, but still... not enough to radically change the exchange rate.

Keep in mind, Soviet/Russian exports to non-favored countries are known as "Monkey Models," radically downgraded.

A T-72 with Kontakt-5 ERA is a far more dangerous proposition than Saddam's armor. K5 shredded US Army long rod penetrators of 1980-'90 vintage. Army & the Bundeswehr got some to test after the Fall of the Wall and nearly lost sphincter control in fear.

[DeltaV]

I read something the other day that said the Air in front of the plane would still produce a detectable Doppler shift radar signature. If this is true, it would seemingly be true for our stuff as well. I know the Serbs figured out a way to shoot one of ours down.

I know that lidar (LIght Distancing And Ranging) can be used to detect atmospheric turbulence, at least at short ranges.
http://www.ophir.com/incoherent-lidar/

[Skipjack]

I agree with CaptainBeowulf. His analysis pretty much is in line with mine.

[ladajo]

These are the points I was also bringing out.

Side note, Soviet C3 for forces is limited by design. They had (have) not progressed much beyond the WW2 idea of when fighting the "russians" shoot for the tank with the antenna. This philosophy also spread into other communist satellites including early on the chinese. It holds more or less true today.
Another good example is the relatively modern "soviet" designs in warship where the fighting systems are NOT integrated. Granted, recently they have moved to a more integrated approach, they are still way behind what western ideas and implementations are in that arena. For example, they do not even have the foundations yet to attempt something like CEC. It is interesting for me to talk with my multitude of foriegn counterparts at work, a number of whom are using or familiar with chinese and soviet systems. Interesting to say the least.

My take on the J-20 is that it is a Taiwan penetrator attempt, as the article points out. But I think they are stretching the limit in regards to going after Strike Groups and airborne volume control assets, tankers or the EA-6's. The AWACs and Hawkeye bit shows a limited understanding about how and where they are placed and utilized, and the tanking bit as well. The EA's comment truely shows lack of understanding in use of assets. But, to be fair, maybe the chinese think that it is viable. I also liked the lesson in geography, made my earlier point nicely about access. Now just add the fact of expeditionary airfields mixed with some politics. Also note that bombing from Oklahoma is shorter in china that bombing Iraq or afghanistan (ie: easier/ higher sortie rate)

[DeltaV]

Delta with Russian-style shock tips and leading strakes.

Straight wingtips from this angle, not shock tips... J-20 Completes First Flight


(Edit - fixed dead link.)

[DeltaV]

I have to wonder if the silvery nozzles on the "first flight" J-20 airplane are some sort of funky, shape-memory alloy or active-nanomaterial thrust-vectoring system.

[Roger]

It may be a substitute engine, as they dont have a production engine ready at this time. It appears there are 2 planes, #2001 and #2002, one with white nozzles, one with darker nozzles.

This was only the first flight, so time will tell, its a nice bird and should be a good performer at over mach 2.

[Skipjack]

To me this looks like a very early prototype. I think that we wont see a production model before at least 10 years from now (if ever).

[AcesHigh]

we have a real reason to worry about the chinese J-20... they have recruited Maverick, Goose and Ice to pilot their fighters!

Chinese TV tries to pass ‘Top Gun’ footage off as real drill?

The newly unveiled J-20 stealth fighter has sparked fears that China is closing the technological gap with the United States. New footage, however, suggests they are firmly stuck in the 1980s.

China Central Television (CCTV) recently aired footage of a J-10 fighter (a predecessor to the J-20) allegedly destroying another aircraft during a training flight. But many viewers noticed something fishy — the images seemed eerily familiar.

Closer inspection revealed an uncanny similarity to a scene from the film "Top Gun," the 1986 Tom Cruise blockbuster.

See for yourself in The Wall Street Journal video below or check out a frame by frame comparison here.

The footage was removed from CCTV's website as news of the alleged fraud spread online.

The news comes amid debate over the future of Canada's own air force. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives recently launched a campaign to defend the multibillion-dollar purchase of F-35 joint strike fighter jets, which come equipped with stealth technology.

The F-35 fighter has become the most-expensive weapons program in history, prompting some to describe it as a "white elephant." Competition from China continues to be one of the primary arguments for development of the F-35, so perhaps this week's gaffe will prompt analysts to re-evaluate the magnitude of the threat.

[93143]

What sense does that make? I don't see any necessary connection between a PR goof like that and the threat posed by the J-20. Is the author of the article suggesting the J-20 is actually a 'shopped F-22 or something?

[IntLibber]

I read something the other day that said the Air in front of the plane would still produce a detectable Doppler shift radar signature. If this is true, it would seemingly be true for our stuff as well. I know the Serbs figured out a way to shoot one of ours down.

I know that lidar (LIght Distancing And Ranging) can be used to detect atmospheric turbulence, at least at short ranges.
http://www.ophir.com/turbulence_detection.html

The serbs were taught by the chinese to site their AA radars separately from the missile launchers so that the missiles would be within the cone of reflection of the radar signals, so the radars only acted to paint the planes with radar for the missiles themselves to lock onto. Stealth primarily deflects radar signals away from the direction of origin. It does not absorb those signals entirely, so lets say there is a valley that attacking planes come down frequently. If you position your radar on one ridge on one side, and your missiles on the opposite ridge, you could then catch the deflected radar signals.