What about the front?
I can't see the picture very well; what are those vehicles on the front of the flight deck?
I can't see the picture very well; what are those vehicles on the front of the flight deck?
U.S. carrier fleet to be reduced?
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
kev 99
Member
I pointed that out on the first page
True - about the size of Gorshkov, a bit bigger than the current USN LHDs & LHAs. But so far, only one is building. The funding for a second one was cut in 2006, & the future of the class is undecided.
Stuipid question dose the America class have a carrier hull form or a LHD type because that could be a limitation. It seems like a perfect ship to stick a ski jump.
Because the American LHA/LHDs have longer flight deck and ramps, the ski jump isn't required. Not to mention there is most likely a super carrier along as well.
The Tarawas and Wasps? Generally considered some of the worst Harrier platforms. The short flight deck without ski jump on them doesn't allow Harriers to launch with full payload.
USMC pilots who've flown off Invincibles have been full of praise for the ski-jump. It allows them to take off in worse sea states, & at higher weights, despite the ships being smaller. For the loss of, at most, one helicopter spot, that seems a good trade-off.
I strongly suspect a bad case of NIH syndrome, but I think the official justification is that the ships are primarily amphibs, not carriers, & a ski-jump compromises that. I don't see how that applies to LHA-6, though.
On spot mate. IMHO USMC Harriers are primarily for battlefield support vice sea control/fleet air defense for the rest of the world's Harriers. LHA-6/F-35B will change that as these new systems will most definitely have sea control as a mission.
BTW the F-35B has passed STOVL thrust tests:
Lockheed Martin F-35B Exceeds STOVL Thrust Requirement
LHA 6 America
Length:844 feet (257.3 meters)
Beam: 106 feet (32.3 meters)
L61 Juan Carlos I
Length:231.8 metres (760 ft)
Beam: 32 metres (100 ft)
R05 Invincible
Length:209 m (690 ft)
Beam: 36 m (120 ft)
I repeat, because of the American ships longer take off runs, the ski jump isn't necessary. I have also read that the F-35Bs require a longer take off run than what the Invincible provides, that the Cavour and Juan Carlos were sized to permit Lightning IIs operations.
Length:844 feet (257.3 meters)
Beam: 106 feet (32.3 meters)
L61 Juan Carlos I
Length:231.8 metres (760 ft)
Beam: 32 metres (100 ft)
R05 Invincible
Length:209 m (690 ft)
Beam: 36 m (120 ft)
I repeat, because of the American ships longer take off runs, the ski jump isn't necessary. I have also read that the F-35Bs require a longer take off run than what the Invincible provides, that the Cavour and Juan Carlos were sized to permit Lightning IIs operations.
And even if its solely battlefield support allowing a take off with higher loads and more efficiently at the cost of a heavy Helo spot. It would be cheap to implement as well. All i can hope is that America will have one later in its life
I forgot to mention that battlefield support for the USMC Harriers also means possible forward deployment to the battlefield, where of course, there are no ski jumps.
I seriously doubt we´ll ever see any ski jumps on USN carrier decks.
Home ports & ski jumps
It's a good idea to base a carrier in or near the Indian Ocean to shorten travel to/from patrol areas. There's more to a home port than the port itself - the surrounding community should be suitable for the sailor's families. That probably rules out most developing nations. There's also political cost - you'd move many $M of both government & private spending overseas. There will be strong opposition from the congressman & senators that represent a US city in danger of losing a carrier task force.
It is more important to the USN that an LHA/LHD is a good base for helos than it is for AV-8 & F-35. Therefore no ski jumps. If the day comes that it's the other way around, it will probably be because of events that are very, very bad for the USA & it's allies.
It's a good idea to base a carrier in or near the Indian Ocean to shorten travel to/from patrol areas. There's more to a home port than the port itself - the surrounding community should be suitable for the sailor's families. That probably rules out most developing nations. There's also political cost - you'd move many $M of both government & private spending overseas. There will be strong opposition from the congressman & senators that represent a US city in danger of losing a carrier task force.
It is more important to the USN that an LHA/LHD is a good base for helos than it is for AV-8 & F-35. Therefore no ski jumps. If the day comes that it's the other way around, it will probably be because of events that are very, very bad for the USA & it's allies.
True of the Wasp & Tarawa classes, but LHA-6 is a very different beastie. It is far more of a carrier than the older ships, with one envisaged air group having 22 F-35B.
It is quite complex and costly to "homeport" a carrier overseas. It's not just the CVN, it's the entire battlegroup, which includes air wing and escorts. This also means intermediate maintenance facilities to service ships and aircraft, something the USN has the luxury of in Japan. As for families overseas, it's already a strain to have families homeported in Japan, just ask any of them.
Diego Garcia is strategically located in the Indian Ocean with an excellent airstrip and maritime pre-positioning force. Also, there usually is a Carrier Strike Group and/or Expeditionary Strike Group in or about the Indian Ocean.