If you were wondering why the USMC is pushing aviation centric ships (supposedly they're going back to a well deck but...) just take a look at the F-35 on the legacy LHD. My complaint with the F-35 is that it costs too much...that alone makes it a curious buy for a cost conscious (supposedly) branch of the military. What should add to those alarm bells is the fact that our legacy LHDs will be Harrier only compatible for the near future.
Our current LHDs are just too small to carry the F-35 AND the rest of the air wing as currently constructed. Taking a look at some of our partners their ships will be equally stressed. The Canberra class?
It'll get the job done but it will be far from ideal. Notice the location of the elevators? I would guess (and I'm hardly an expert) but moving F-35's from below would be an exercise in and of itself.
The Japanese and S. Korean ships? Better suited to the task but they're more aircraft carrier than LHD. How about the French Mistral class?
No way in hell. The Mistral has gained many fans when it showed up for Bold Alligator off the Eastern seaboard. Many Marine and Navy officials came away highly impressed with the ship. A few defense commentators even went so far as to suggest the USMC lobby to build the ships here in the states as a way of gaining a highly effective ship at a reasonable price.
But that leaves the Brits and the Italians. We all know that the QE class being built by the UK is more than large enough to operate the F-35, and the Cavour passes that eyeball test too.
So having done this eyeball test what does that leave us with?
The very sad case of Marine Corps amphibious shipping growing to such a size as to rival the carrier Navy. When an LHD starts morphing into a carrier sized ship...the USS America is larger than the Admiral Kuznetsov when its standard loaded...then you have issues.
What happens when the nation has to choose between LHDs and Carriers? What gets selected and what gets canned?
This is my 1st ever post hete so please dont jump on me too much Sol. (2nd attempt after the net ate my 1st go)
ReplyDeleteSurely the question u pose is only really an issue for the USA, China & a future India. Other countries are never likely to field a supercarrier. I cant see France, Russia building more to rival the size of the USN ships & the new RN ships have always had operating the F35b in mind.
Given that the USN have been considering reducing the numbers of supercarriers then surely a bigger LHA would be of benefit, filling in any gaps. I mean as much as u dislike the F35b its going to be a vastly more capable aircraft than legacy Hornets and Harriers. Does it not share the same radar & sensor fit as the C version?
Wouldnt it make more sence for the USN to make another few ships the same as the USS America before swaping the design for one with a well deck?
Right, shoot me down now.
Greg.
well the question to me is a bit simpler. the Navy has X-amount of money. what gives you more bang for the buck.
Deletean LHD with a battalion of Marines that's aviation centric (also consider that the San Antonio class can almost carry a full battalion by itself...plus we're begging for a LSD replacement) or a full size carrier that can project aviation power that equals a couple of squadrons, sub hunters and a sea going awacs?
the question is which will be more valuable and then decide what gets cut. my estimation is that the America class has morphed into a direct competitor to the big deck carrier. and in that scenario the carrier will win everytime.
For the love of... seriously Solomon, some of the countries that you claim will fly F-35s off LHDs have very very specifically made statements that they will NOT operate F-35s off LHDs, specifically the RAN, so why are you using that as an example?
ReplyDeleteGiven a government declaration vs fantasy fleets, the government declaration has more weight in my eyes.
for the love of...seriously daniel, i'm making a point about the size of lhds. i'm talking about which are capable of carrying the f-35 and which would struggle with the task.
Deletei'm not talking f-35 here. i'm talking about big ass lhds. lhds that are getting as big as carriers.
try and keep up.
Solomon, I think you are off the mark here, and this is why:
ReplyDeleteLHA-6 is not appreciably larger than LHA-1, LHD-1, or LHD-8. Over the course of 14 ships the displacement has gone from ~40kt to ~45kt. The difference between LHA-6 and LHD-8 (which is its immediate predecessor and the basis for the design) is 3kt. An increase of ~12% displacement over a 40 year time frame in which most everything the ship actually carries has gotten significantly heavier is pretty reasonable.
We have been making 40kt class LHA/LHDs since the 70s. Nothing has changed on the scale. The only thing different about LHA-6/7 is that they omit the well deck. Size wise they are exactly the same.
i think your figures are a bit off. LHA-1 came in under 40K, additionally i have in my tobacco stained hands a pdf file that shows that to gain back the well deck the Navy is looking at a plug in plus a smaller tower. we're looking at a ship that is still going to be aviation centric and the well deck is mostly for show and not much else.
Deleteadditionally the LHD-8 is an interim ship that combined many of the features of the America class with the legacy. consider it a bridge ship. lastly lets be realistic and real. the legacy LHDs actually come in at best at mid 30K weight. they're floating larger numbers because they're trying to jiggle the numbers to make the new ship not look like an outlier.
it is. the USS America class is something new. its more than a LHD but less than a carrier. thats the point.
LHA-1 was 38.9kt. LHD-1 was 40.5kt. Dimensionally they are all within slivers over each other.
DeleteThe smaller tower footprint in the future is for more efficient use of the deck space and was something they wanted to do for LHA-6/7 but couldn't due to timing. LHA-8 will rely primarily on LCAC for amphib transportation, part of the logistics changes they made with LHD-8 in order to simplify the multiple fuel issues.
The 40Kt+ weight for the Wasp Class are designed weights, just like the 45Kt weight for the America class is designed weight. The empty/light weight for the Wasp class is just under 30kT. That is without fuel, without cargo (helicopters, harriers, amphibs, equipment, etc), water, crew, passengers, etc. LHA-6 has a light displacement not much different than the wasp class.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think for some countries that can't afford a super carrier an LHA or LHD is their capitol ship. Though for the US Navy, we have enough LHA/LHD to cover for each MEU(SOC) that can be on station anywhere in the world.
ReplyDeleteThe British QE carrier was designed to be able to operate with and without cats and traps. I wonder if a 70,000 ton common hull design for the navy and marines would drive costs down. The navy version gets the cats and traps, while the marine version a ski jump. Less rivalry and more co-operation.
ReplyDelete