It would clearly make the T26 class huge adding 20 more ships and with a few more export orders, the number could go beyond 60 ships.
Yep it's quite an interesting concept and makes good use of the F-35B's capabilities and harkens back to the Marines flying off CACTUS (Henderson Field) in the Solomons during the Guadalcanal Campaign in WW2 I have been wondering why they can't use a ground based portable fuel pump from the fuel bladders to the F-35B rather than going thru a CH- 53 or a MV-22. Would make sense in the long run rather than having an aircraft tied up on the deck refuelling fast jets.
Depending upon the surface type. If it was a hard smooth granite rock without cracks then it would withstand quite a bit of the heat and thrust from the engines, but vertical take offs significantly reduce payloads. For rolling take offs any flat area the same length as an America's Class flight deck, such as a concrete road or paved area, or as you say a mesh strip that withstand the heat and force from the engine thrust.
Did think about it afterwards and it was only a proof of concept test, so makes sense to use a CH-53 for the refuelling.
Yep, it's quite a versatile aircraft and people think that it only operates on / off flat decks, but they forget that the RAF had the Harrier operating remotely deployed away from fixed airfields.
Going against navy advice is a questionable decision but so is retiring a 21-year-old supercarrier. However this carrier is scheduled to go in for a midlife refit and cancelling that refit would save billions. That the navy doesn't seem to have enough aircraft for its current carrier fleet would also suggest that maintaining an 11 carrier fleet simply may not be viable at this point.
I thought that Congress had passed a “bill” or other instrument which mandated that the USN would not go under 11 x CVN’s.
They don’t have 10 operational Nimitz CVNs and never do as one is always undergoing a MLU which includes re-fuelling and that takes 4 years.
