A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[Jaimito]

dont know if this has any bearing on that but...

quote from Wikipedia.
Quote:
The latest version can track more than 2,000 targets simultaneously (while at the same time, detecting 20,000 simultaneously) to a range greater than 400 mi (640 km) and simultaneously guide 40–100 air to air intercepts or air to surface engagements.

Note:
-is different to guide to intercept, than to guide at detail in a battle, the question is we see "battle management" associated to Hawkeye and we think it does at detail level automated, and doing further reading, my understandings is that the detail guiding in a battle could be done by Hawkeye but by means of operators. So if a pilot ask the Hawkeye where is his last hostile jet engaged (because sky is very big and they get lost), then the pilot will need operator assitance, that is (my understanding) the Hawkeye is not going to send a datalink to the screen of the pilot telling him where is his hostile jet. Similarly if you want to warn your pilot that an hostile jet has taken his tail. Its very difficult to automate by means of software and electronics the quality of assitance that an human operator in direct verbal connection (not need to look at jet screen) can give.
-but probably you say that "battle management" associated to Hawkeye, and "thousands of targets" associated to Hawkeye and think that Hawkeye does it all,even at detail assistance. Let me have my doubts.

-F35b at 1500 kms/h reach the Hawkeye, that have detected the wave of jets coming at 500 km away, so it will take 20 mins to reach the Hawkeye. If the Hawkeye, unconsciously, enters "20 minutes" in the Lhd radar picture (or Awd if we count it) the jets, being much faster will reach the Hawkeye and destroy it, and it doesn´t matter if it is escorted by jets, if you achive to reach the Hawkeye zone it is so big and slow that it will be an easy target in the mess.

-now, will the Hawkeye be useful if he is in an evasive manouvre, will the radar be well positioned in that manouvre or the comms work fast?

-this is just examples, trying to find that the Hawkeye is not going to be decisive in this comparison, which i don´t know.

 

[SASWanabe]

im almost certain an F-35 has its own radar to track A/C not to mention with the helmets, all a pilot has to do is turn his head in the direction of a hostile to see it...

a hawkeye is a carrier based A/C as in it will be near its CBG i dont imagine they stray much further away than 150nm (sm-6). again even a hobart would have trouble detecting a hawkeye at 400nm+ (i.e a hawkeye will still be able to detect any threat before the threat detects the hawkeye)

im not sure what the radar range of a hobart is tho...

 

[AegisFC]

Why do i have to know at detail how it works the latest version of Hawkeye? I am asking, sugesting, and talking hypothetically, giving my personal opinion, who looks like a fool is the people, like you or others, who don´t understand that i can be wrong or corrected, if corresponds, which i have my doubts that correspond in the Hawkeye issue, which would be just simply a minor mistake in this case.

No one is demanding details, we are demanding you do some research before posting. You had no clue how many operators or the basic capabilities of the Hawkeye, nor did you do any research into how the USN uses the Hawkeye before posting drivel. If you bothered to do some basic research you wouldn't need to be corrected.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Note:
-is different to guide to intercept, than to guide at detail in a battle, the question is we see "battle management" associated to Hawkeye and we think it does at detail level automated, and doing further reading, my understandings is that the detail guiding in a battle could be done by Hawkeye but by means of operators. So if a pilot ask the Hawkeye where is his last hostile jet engaged (because sky is very big and they get lost), then the pilot will need operator assitance, that is (my understanding) the Hawkeye is not going to send a datalink to the screen of the pilot telling him where is his hostile jet. Similarly if you want to warn your pilot that an hostile jet has taken his tail. Its very difficult to automate by means of software and electronics the quality of assitance that an human operator in direct verbal connection (not need to look at jet screen) can give.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the issue about track management, battle management and systems management. The Hawkeye is part of a sensor detection layer around a fleet. They have wide roles, not discretionary capabilities. No one is going to go into detail on how they fight, track, manage and defend as its a systems event - not a platform event.

-F35b at 1500 kms/h reach the Hawkeye, that have detected the wave of jets coming at 500 km away, so it will take 20 mins to reach the Hawkeye. If the Hawkeye, unconsciously, enters "20 minutes" in the Lhd radar picture (or Awd if we count it) the jets, being much faster will reach the Hawkeye and destroy it, and it doesn´t matter if it is escorted by jets, if you achive to reach the Hawkeye zone it is so big and slow that it will be an easy target in the mess.

Its obviously not that simple though. again, reds capability may be actively or passively delaminated as part of supporting the Hawkeye mission. There is a boundary that triggers events. This is the same kind of discussion we used to see about killing off the tankers. What looks like how things will happen on paper is not how it actually evolves in real life. again, I'm not prepared to go into detail as I regard internet discussions on actual capability as inappropriate.

-but probably you say that "battle management" associated to Hawkeye, and "thousands of targets" associated to Hawkeye and think that Hawkeye does it all,even at detail assistance. Let me have my doubts.

no offence, but when you get concepts wrong, then making a claim about the capability of how many threats an asset can concurrently manage rings hollow. These platforms on their own can manage significant volumes of data on discrete red threats when required. They've been doing it for years so its irrelevant whether any thinks that they can't do it. Again, not only do they have significant volume processing capability, but they are part of a systems solution, they are not the only harvesting and management tool in the local toolbox. They don't process alone, they are part of a chain. the threat and management ability at a systems level is significant.

-now, will the Hawkeye be useful if he is in an evasive manouvre, will the radar be well positioned in that manouvre or the comms work fast?

battlefield events require multiple sources of validation before committing a response. The Hawkeye might be the only visible platform harvesting and sending at that visible point in the layer - it is NOT however the only confirming asset in the assessment matrix.

-this is just examples, trying to find that the Hawkeye is not going to be decisive in this comparison, which i don´t know.

warfighting is a systems event, its not a platform event. systems events means that all participating assets are providing sensor capability and overlap. remove one feed and the sensor grid does not collapse. Hawkeyes (and even ASW helos) act as pickets. In the past their job was to also detect and alert re incoming cruise missiles. tac planners do actually "plan" for these things.

 

[Jaimito]

Some people think that the Lhd has limited capability to handle many jets. In a few words i try to show the contrary, it can handle all the jets that carries, example:

-20 in hangar, plus 8 in the 8 parking (able to fuel and arm) places in flight deck (2 fore, 6 back in spots and next to Sea Ram.
-3 h. endurance, 180 mins, 28 jets, 6.4 minutes per jet.
-landing and refuelling by groups of 3 (for this example, of 2 or of 4 to study), so 3 x 6.4 minutes is 19 minutes, each 19 minutes comes a group of 3 for landing.
-a group of 3 lands, move it the 3 of the 8 parking places.
-19 minutes passed, a 2nd group of 3 lands, move these to other 3 parking places.
-so either in those 19 minutes you have launched de 1st group of 3, or you launch them in the 2nd period of 19 mins before the 3rd group comes in. If you fail to land vertically, park, refuel, rearm, and launch 3 jets in 19+19 so 38 minutes then you wont have 2 parking places left for jets lifted from hangar and keep growing the number of jets in the air upto 28.
-so just before the 1st group of 3 lands you have launched "X" jets (8 from flight deck and some from hangar). And onwards is going to be in air: "X" +2, +2, +2,... because you use 6 parking places to keep them in the air, and 2 parking places for growing the numbers until you clear the hangar.
-is it sufficient 38 minutes for 3 jets: yes because you work on them simultaneously so like you have +30 minutes for each jet.

So it is proved that the Lhd can handle 28 jets (if it can carry them).

 

[Bonza]

Where the bloody hell is it going to store fuel and munitions for 28 STOVL jet fighters? How long are you planning to sustain flight operations? How do you handle maintenance of so many aircraft on a vessel of that size? Good grief mate, have a think about the practicality of what you're suggesting! You haven't proven a bloody thing, you've just slapped some arbitrary numbers together, ignored the difficult bits, and declared yourself correct!

I hate to be so abrupt but come on mate... please, take some advice from some of the guys in here, they really do know their stuff, and they'll tell you that operating 28 jets off an LHD just ain't gonna happen. The ship just isn't designed for it, by which I mean just because you've got a flat top, doesn't mean you can just pack it with jets and call it an aircraft carrier... yes, it can carry aircraft, but it's not designed to sustain flight operations with a large force of fast jets - the key word being sustain. If you can't provide sustained operations, then it doesn't matter how many planes you've got parked on deck, because they're not going anywhere. If you wanted to provide even limited sustainment I suspect you'd have to totally redesign the deck plan to make additional room for fuel, ordnance, and maintenance facilities.

My advice would be to listen to Aegis and GF, they know their stuff, and it won't do you any harm to read their reaction to your idea. I have no reason to want your idea to be wrong, but I promise you that reading more into the subject, listening to learned minds when you get the chance, and asking questions will get you a lot further than making things up because you want the LHD to be a carrier. Give other ideas a chance, mate. You might be surprised.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Right, I've had my patience curve challenged enough.

I'm not going to see this thread go through the same nonsense that we went through with AGC33E and the fatships.

There are some people in here who have had direct involvement with the fatships, with procurement, with future operations concepts and with fleet exercises, including the current exchanges with other Navies on how they will be employed/deployed.

It would pay to listen to them.

It can be hypothetical as much as we like, but the basis of the hypothetical is contingent on whether the platform is geared to do it in the first place. Its NOT. It might be for the Spanish, its NOT for the RAN.

The vessels are not identical. a ship is a ship is a ship. Just because they look similar externally has no bearing on fitout and bunkerage design internally for the respective customers.

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Jaimito]

I was referring to handle in terms of sustainment in the air.

Maintenance: Navantia says it can carry 20 Harriers, Spanish have 16 or 18 Harriers, even Navantia mentions 30 med helos in hangar, all those aircraft require the workshops, magazine for spares, cranes, for maintenance otherwise Navantia wouldnt say that can carry them.

Jp5: it needs a good tanker. That is in the papers, 1, 2, 3 tankers, 10, 15, 20000 t.

Weapons, by mentions, the weapons storage in the Lhd and in the Charles de Gaulle might be similar, 600 sq mts Lhd, 500 t. in Charles de Gaulle.

 

[SASWanabe]

i would also recommend having a look at Cavour same displacement as canberra but larger in dimensions(Also built primarily as an aircraft carrier) , the italians manage 8 harriers or 12 helicopters or a mix of the 2, how are we supposed to opperate 28 jets from something designed primarily as an amphib?

Edit: sorry gf u posted while i was typing ill shut up

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Agreed, the thread is quickly approaching the point where it will be locked yet again.

I have no problem with this thread, but then again I stopped reading and responding to anything Jaimito posts a week or so ago.

 

[Volkodav]

i would also recommend having a look at Cavour same displacement as canberra but larger in dimensions(Also built primarily as an aircraft carrier) , the italians manage 8 harriers or 12 helicopters or a mix of the 2, how are we supposed to opperate 28 jets from something designed primarily as an amphib?

Edit: sorry gf u posted while i was typing ill shut up

My understanding is that Spain has begun preliminary studies into a replacement for Principe de Asturias and that this ship will be an aircraft carrier not an LHD. Italy is working on an LHD as Cavour (although her hanger deck has access ramps and can be used as a vehicle deck) is a carrier and not an LHD.

This seems to indicate that two navies experienced in operating STOVL carriers realize that carriers and LHDs are not interchangeable but complementary. At best an LHD could be used to maintain carrier currency while the carrier is unavailable, and perhaps to provide a forward base for a small number of aircraft in an emergency if the carrier was unavailable.

 

[Marc 1]

I have no problem with this thread, but then again I stopped reading and responding to anything Jaimito posts a week or so ago.

I'd noticed that. I have a feeling Jaimito is a Spaniard - therefore anything produced by the Spanish defence industry is simply the dog's bollocks - comendable if a fraction short sighted. Even if the shipyards there produced 11'6" tinnies, he'd work out a way to flat top it and turn it into a stealth single harrier attack carrier far superior to a Nimitz class.

Jaimito, mate, be happy your country produces some very fine products - Spain has got it all over Australia in that regard, but please understand, the S80 will not be the preferred solution for all underwater activities, the fatships are not a suitable replacement in any numbers for a supercarrier.

In short, dude, pull your head in.

 

[alexsa]

I have no problem with this thread, but then again I stopped reading and responding to anything Jaimito posts a week or so ago.

Sorry for the one liner, but Amen to that

 

[aussienscale]

My understanding is that Spain has begun preliminary studies into a replacement for Principe de Asturias and that this ship will be an aircraft carrier not an LHD. Italy is working on an LHD as Cavour (although her hanger deck has access ramps and can be used as a vehicle deck) is a carrier and not an LHD.

This seems to indicate that two navies experienced in operating STOVL carriers realize that carriers and LHDs are not interchangeable but complementary. At best an LHD could be used to maintain carrier currency while the carrier is unavailable, and perhaps to provide a forward base for a small number of aircraft in an emergency if the carrier was unavailable.

I would agree, Spain is in the process and has stated in the past the JC1 is definately not an AC, but is intended to "maintain" skill levels during re fit of the PDA which IIRC is due to go into refit later this year. They also talk about the JC1 in the carrier mode, which is intended to compliment the PDA and her future replacement not meaning you can just swap her over and Bob's your uncle you have an instant Carrier
Interesting comment re the Italians, has not taken them long if this is the case that Cavour was not the way to go. I always personally thought it was still a compromise as well, but still a good piece of kit. It will be interesting to watch which way both go, although I would not envisage the Italians being in a hurry in the current climate.
The Spanish would be first I think and see them doing an updated SCS design with the learnings of the PDA, Naruebet and to a certain extent the JC1/Canberra's and one would assume purpose built around the JSF ?

 

[Volkodav]

I would agree, Spain is in the process and has stated in the past the JC1 is definately not an AC, but is intended to "maintain" skill levels during re fit of the PDA which IIRC is due to go into refit later this year. They also talk about the JC1 in the carrier mode, which is intended to compliment the PDA and her future replacement not meaning you can just swap her over and Bob's your uncle you have an instant Carrier
Interesting comment re the Italians, has not taken them long if this is the case that Cavour was not the way to go. I always personally thought it was still a compromise as well, but still a good piece of kit. It will be interesting to watch which way both go, although I would not envisage the Italians being in a hurry in the current climate.
The Spanish would be first I think and see them doing an updated SCS design with the learnings of the PDA, Naruebet and to a certain extent the JC1/Canberra's and one would assume purpose built around the JSF ?

Two LHD(s) are intended to replace the first two San Giogios and a third modified to an LHA will replace Garabaldi according to Defence IQ

Italy Paves the Way for New Amphibious Assault Vessels by Defence IQ Press

 

[aussienscale]

Two LHD(s) are intended to replace the first two San Giogios and a third modified to an LHA will replace Garabaldi according to Defence IQ

Italy Paves the Way for New Amphibious Assault Vessels by Defence IQ Press

Interesting, thanks for that. Not sure about the civillian spec though, but also this can be done quicker and more local content, which = jobs created by the government which is a good thing in the current climate. This would allow them to have the Cavour more or less perm setup as a carrier, with possible mods and improvements over time in future refits, I would see very little need for her to do otherwise with this coming ?
Will be interesting to see what they go for ? maybe a dumbed down JC1 or Mistral ?

 

[Jaimito]

I am open to listen any critics on my maths, but critics with my logic, it is very easy to say that what i say is absurd, ridiculous, crap, etc... but i would like to discuss the logic points of my statements. And let me say in my defence that i am graduated on Mathematics in University and i had A level marks all the years (one of the best European Universities, not easy), so i advise at least give a chance to my counts on jets.

If Moderators consider that my following statements are out of the thread, they can remove them, a pity for me, but please don´t close the thread and blame me for that.

Anyway, just for a laugh, with respect as possible.

Recall that Charles de GAulle is nuclear (300 mwatts) and is having big problems of avalability, it was many months for the 5 year nuclear recharge or refit, and now another many months to see the problem with the propulsion and ship´s structure or whatever.
-4 NImitz: 4 x 6000 people, 24000 people, 400000 t. moved, and how many jets can handle a Nimitz:
-let´s see if a NImitz can handle, as example, 40 jets:
-3 h. endurance jet, 180 minutes, 40 jets, 4,5 mins per jet, 3 arrestors in 1 landing runway so land them by groups of 3, 3 x 4,5 mins is 13,5 mins to per group of 3 to land.
-say that the NImitz has, at least, 8 refuelling and rearming spots in its flight deck.
-follow the same maths as for the Lhd, to find out that you need to dispacht each group of 3 in 27 minutes, so that you have 2 free spots and keep the number growing in the air.
-is 27 minutes enough? I don´t know but arrestors are supposed to be more complicated, i have seen videos from the Russian carrier with continous crashes in the flight deck due to mistake in the arresting.
-but ok, let´s say the Nimitz can do that. It is actually the normal amount of jets that carries a Nimitz, but remember carry is not the same as to handle, you might carry more than you can handle to share the jets and keep hours of flight similar in all of them.
-so 4 Nimitz at this config give 40 x 4 is 160 jets, but it is 12 hour turns,so 24 h. a day is 80 jets.
-note that if we use 50 jets give a dispatchin time per group of 3 of 21 minutes, you really might close to the limit with 50 jets.

Now, inside my world, it is proved that 1 Lhd can handle 28 jets, so 3 Lhd can 3 x 28 is 84 jets, and they can give the 24 h. a day.

So can you imagine Usa government asking for help or buying services to Australian goverment to use the 3 Lhd inside a battle group with maybe 1 Nimitz (for the Hawkeye awareness), because their Wasp are busy...

Instead of 4 NImitz so 24000 people and 400000 t. moved, the same punch can be given by 3 Lhd, so say 500 (250 ship crew + 250 air unit) people per Lhd, 1500 people or say 3000 people, and 75000 t. moved.

Of course, this is in my theoretical world, in reality who knows.

Its the special ability of F35b to be put in smaller carriers.

 

[t68]

Just wondering on people thought’s on the new LHA-6 USS America.


She is a redesign primarily from a WASP class for enhanced aviation capability, no well dock for extra hanger space (longer and higher) for a more maintenance friendly space with overhead cranes, bigger bunker’s for avgas etc.

Going by what AgiesFC has stated about having a flat bottom and being slow compared to purpose built aircraft carrier, how much of a hindrance will the design be if used in a dedicated light carrier role Hypothetically for the RAN.I have also noted when compared next to a Wasp class an America class will have no extra aircraft in the sea control configuration 20 F35B plus 6 ASW Helicopters’ or a pure JSF platform 22 aircraft. I understand the primary role of LHA-6 is in close support of Marine’s on the beach or wherever they may be she is not designed as a global power projection asset in the USN, but having 2 in RAN colours plus 40 odd aircraft for the FAA in an Australian context would be all that plus being approximately half the strength of the RAAF in numbers, but could be more flexible in sortie rate’s compared to purpose built cat/trap carrier or land based aircraft from what AG was saying.

What is the ideal size carrier for Australia, 20/40/65 ton’s STOVL or CATOBAR?


LHA-6 America
LHA-6 America / LHX / LHA(R) - Specifications
LHD-1 Wasp class - Specifications
CVN-68 Nimitz-class - Specifications

 

[Todjaeger]

I am open to listen any critics on my maths, but critics with my logic, it is very easy to say that what i say is absurd, ridiculous, crap, etc... but i would like to discuss the logic points of my statements. And let me say in my defence that i am graduated on Mathematics in University and i had A level marks all the years (one of the best European Universities, not easy), so i advise at least give a chance to my counts on jets.

If Moderators consider that my following statements are out of the thread, they can remove them, a pity for me, but please don´t close the thread and blame me for that.

Anyway, just for a laugh, with respect as possible.

Recall that Charles de GAulle is nuclear (300 mwatts) and is having big problems of avalability, it was many months for the 5 year nuclear recharge or refit, and now another many months to see the problem with the propulsion and ship´s structure or whatever.
-4 NImitz: 4 x 6000 people, 24000 people, 400000 t. moved, and how many jets can handle a Nimitz:
-let´s see if a NImitz can handle, as example, 40 jets:
-3 h. endurance jet, 180 minutes, 40 jets, 4,5 mins per jet, 3 arrestors in 1 landing runway so land them by groups of 3, 3 x 4,5 mins is 13,5 mins to per group of 3 to land.
-say that the NImitz has, at least, 8 refuelling and rearming spots in its flight deck.
-follow the same maths as for the Lhd, to find out that you need to dispacht each group of 3 in 27 minutes, so that you have 2 free spots and keep the number growing in the air.
-is 27 minutes enough? I don´t know but arrestors are supposed to be more complicated, i have seen videos from the Russian carrier with continous crashes in the flight deck due to mistake in the arresting.
-but ok, let´s say the Nimitz can do that. It is actually the normal amount of jets that carries a Nimitz, but remember carry is not the same as to handle, you might carry more than you can handle to share the jets and keep hours of flight similar in all of them.
-so 4 Nimitz at this config give 40 x 4 is 160 jets, but it is 12 hour turns,so 24 h. a day is 80 jets.
-note that if we use 50 jets give a dispatchin time per group of 3 of 21 minutes, you really might close to the limit with 50 jets.

Now, inside my world, it is proved that 1 Lhd can handle 28 jets, so 3 Lhd can 3 x 28 is 84 jets, and they can give the 24 h. a day.

So can you imagine Usa government asking for help or buying services to Australian goverment to use the 3 Lhd inside a battle group with maybe 1 Nimitz (for the Hawkeye awareness), because their Wasp are busy...

Instead of 4 NImitz so 24000 people and 400000 t. moved, the same punch can be given by 3 Lhd, so say 500 (250 ship crew + 250 air unit) people per Lhd, 1500 people or say 3000 people, and 75000 t. moved.

Of course, this is in my theoretical world, in reality who knows.

Its the special ability of F35b to be put in smaller carriers.

The many people have is with the logic of what you are posting, and the problems with the logic is that there are assumptions and presumptions made which are often have little or no basis in reality.

Take this for example:

-let´s see if a NImitz can handle, as example, 40 jets:

Per the USN Fact sheet a Nimitz-class CVN operates 60+ aircraft, and a Gerald R. Ford-class CVN can operate 75+.. Other sources suggest that the 'normal' Nimitz group is about 64, with ~36-40 fastjet fighter/strike aircraft, then the rest being fixed or rotary-winged support aircraft for SAR, ASW, AWACS and transport functions. They also suggest that the CVN can operate up to ~90 aircraft if needed. In short, the Nimitz-class has absolutely demonstrated the ability to operate that many jets, and more.

Things rapidly went askew from there. Numbers used for sortie generation and recovery, time to refuel and re-arm, etc. Some of those figures might be in the public domain, but I would strongly question the accuracy of any of these unless they are from official sources and/or have supporting/confirming sources as well.

Complicating this is that the conops for an aircraft carrier is different from how you seem intent of having it operate. In essence, an aircraft carrier is a floating airfield, from which USN and USMC aircraft can operate from in a sustained fashion. Which means that not every mission is going to use every aircraft. Due to regular operational use, aircraft will be taken out for maintenance and even possibily battle damage. A CVN has the maintenance and machine shops, as well as facility space, to maintain and repair complex aircraft. There is also sufficient fuel and munitions carried onboard to allow for extended operations before requiring RAS.

In the case of the 28 F-35B's that has been asserted the Canberra-class can operate... Does that leave any provision for rotary-winged assets operating from the Canberra? I would imagine that the jet pilots would find it distressing to be forced to eject over water and/or hostile territory, and not have any SAR helicopters available to come looking for them. Or what about any needs to transfer personnel and supplies onto or off of a Canberra? What about fuel and munitions bunkerage for the embarked aircraft? How long can the F-35B's be kept fueled and armed before requiring RAS? What about maintenance and repairs for the aircraft? With 28 aircraft aboard, and given the size and location of the onboard machine shops, are the facilities adequate to service the fighters? How about the size and locations of the parking lanes and elevators. Are they conducive to transporting aircraft to and from the flightline, arming/fueling points and maintenance? Or is it more like a game of Tetris where three other aircraft would need to be shuffled around to get one aircraft to a location it needs to go?

At just a casual glance, things might look simple. A given ship of X, Y and Z dimensions, with t displacement, with n lane metres can carry F numbers of fighters. Being able to sustain operations, be it for fighters, helicopters or something else is another matter entirely. And that very real logistical footprint aircraft operations requires seems to have been entirely overlooked. As has all the other interlocking capabilities that modern combat systems require.

As has been discussed here on DT repeatedly, it is not about the platform, but about the overall system itself. Pretty much the only time platform discussion is really relevant is when discussing the merits of which platform can meet the capability requirements the system dictates.

-Cheers

 

[Jaimito]

It would be a good beast to use F35bs in a Nimitz instead of the catapults and arrestors.

The example was as a maximum jets example, if you want to have 28 and helos:
-2 or 3 helos next to the island touching it along the runway, or 2 and some space for the lorries (weapons, for moving the jets).
-can the lifts be used to park 2 of the 28 jets there, fuel and arm them there? in the flight deck but in the lifts, if so youcan use the big spot, the nº1 closest to the back lift, for helos.
-otherwise you have to study the global operation of jets to see where you can be flexible to land and refuel or move to park the helos next to the island. I don´t say it cannot be flexibilized, for example, once you have launched all your jets you have that 1st spot free for helos.


Now if you want to have permanently an helo spot, a big one, say the 1st spot, then you loose 2 parking places for jets. Now just 6 parking places for the sustaintment and 26 jets and 2 o 3 helos. And:
-either you dispatch by groups of 2 in at most 28 minutes, and grow up numbers in the air through 2 free parking places.
-or you dispatch by groups of 3 (max 35 minutes) and altenarted with groups of 2 (also max 35 minutes), and grow up number in the air through 1 free parking place.
-so that 26 jets and 2 or 3 helos (with a big helo spot for helos).

Until you don´t see with your eyes you will not believe me, but it is the F35b magic.

Note that i used as general jet endurance 3 hours but maybe is different (a bit more) in Nimitz jets, but anyway you have to leave a margin of fuel just in case..

Cheers.