Marine Corp Test New Lightning Carrier Concept
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 кві 2022
- Marines have an idea that will greatly enhance its warfighting capability.
US Navy Budget is 10% to 43% more costly than it's $18 Billion proposal.
USNI.org
www.cbo.gov/publication/57414....
news.usni.org/2022/04/07/repo...
news.usni.org/2022/04/05/mari...
#lightning #f35 #cno
Join OnlySubs UA-cam Channel for Cold Waters gameplay and much more
/ @jiveturkeylive
📫 Contact Gene Dayhaw gene@solaromgmt.com for paid promotion.
🤩 twitch.tv/subbrief
😎 Patreon ► patreon.com/subbrief
🏴☠️► SubBrief.com
💣The WarZone ► thedrive.com/author/aaron-amick
🤐 Not for Hire ► Aaron linkedin.com/in/aaron-amick-9538a4171/
📸 Instagram ► subbrief
😃 Facebook ► Sub-Brief-100400978417964
📡 Reddit ► reddit.com/r/SubBrief/
🔞Twitter ► SubBrief
🔥 / subbrief
📭Aaron Amick 8834 E 34 Rd #139, Cadillac, MI 49601
💌 Contact Aaron ► Aaron@subbrief.com
Aaron's PC Spec
------------------------
CPU: Intel i9-9900k @4.7 GHz
RAM: 32GB
GPU: NVIDIA TITAN RTX 24GB GDDR6
Accelsior 4M2 16.0TB PCIe M.2 NVMe SSD
sub brief
subbrief
cold waters
cold waters 2021
aaron amick
sonar
sonarman
sme
subject matter expert
navy
naval
games
news
history
Small Escort Carriers had a huge impact in WW2, all countries with "helo" carriers should do this
Airplanes were also much, much smaller than today. Fleet carriers had enough room to carry spare wings and fuselages in the overheads of the hanger spaces. Keep in mind that in-flight refueling, anti-submarine, early-warning and electronic warfare technologies hadn't been developed yet, which requires dedicated planes for those missions.
An Essex-class carrier had an air wing of 100+ planes; Yorktown class' had a 70-80 planes; escort & light carriers had anywhere between 25-45 planes, depending on class.
They have been doing this since the 1980's. The UK, Spain, Italy, India, Thailand... bassically everyone that flew the Harrier.
Japan and S.Korea are both adapting ASW helo carriers to accommodate F-35's, Turkey wanted to but then got kicked from the F-35 program.
Cause the helicopters are not necessary?
And they should buy F35 and have those integrated with rotary aircraft. That is currently what Japan is doing.
especially when now, our 'small escort carriers' are roughly the same size as many nations carriers with roughly the same firepower. Just makes it that much more difficult for a near peer to counter our strength.
21st century near peer hypersonic threats being what they are, I think having more and smaller carriers available with something as effective as the F-35 is going to prove handy. With a little luck, the deterrent factor is all we'll ever need.
Carriers were always vulnerable assetts. If you compare it to the beginning in WW II, with subs and hostile aircraft as their enemy, it didnt stop the US to deploy them anyway. The doctrine was always offensive. Of course, nuclear aircraft carriers are much bigger and much more expensive, but in comparison there is not much difference.
Nuclear submarines are the main assetts in a World War III scenario.
To be fair, extremely high speed anti-ship missiles have been around since, what, the 1960s? The kill chain required to kill a carrier has been difficult for a similar amount of time (but not impossible).
Hypersonic weapons are over rated...
They have recently been used in Ukraine and its made no real difference on the Ukrainian Battlefield.
In regards to naval targets. America has the sm6 to take care of hypersonic missiles.
This is why America is not rushing to develop a missile that can intercept hypersonic missiles.. They already have that ability.
Also I may be wrong but I can't think of nation that has used a hypersonic missiles to hit a moving ship!....
Like I said, they are overrated 😉
@@aloh5613 They used the hypersonic missiles because they depleted their guided ordinance.
Of course it didnt do any difference, because Ukrainians dont have CIWS and other anti missile systems.
@@aloh5613 Well stated man.
The alternative use of amphibious assault ships as light carriers makes perfect sense. If there's no/little hardware conversion necessary between the two configurations, just embarking a different set of units, then they might as well be used instead of merely awaiting the rare amphibious assault task. This is especially true if the units necessary for both missions can stay forward deployed in Asia, avoiding having to cross the Pacific twice to change roles.
Most other navies do the same thing with their amphibious assault ships since they don't have the budget that Uncle Sam can throw around.
The problem with a V/STOL carrier is the shorter range of the F-35B, it would help if they had the ski-jump bow like the British Queen Elizabeth class carriers.
@@johnbeaulieu2404 Most V/STOL carriers of that type around the world DO have ski jumps. US Navy LHAs do not have the ski jump because their greater length gives them less of a need to have one (though arguably still useful) and that a ramp would take up a couple of spots for a helicopter to take off and land on.
The helicopter matter was seen as more important for the USN, as the need to operate fixed-wing aircraft from those ships aren't nearly as important to a navy which operates nuclear supercarriers of unmatched capability.
@@johnbeaulieu2404 "The problem with a V/STOL carrier"(sic)
STOVL not V/STOL
"is the shorter range of the F-35B,"
The B has 75% of the range as the C and since the amphibs operate closer to the FEBA than a CVN does the difference is for all intents and purposes moot.
"it would help if they had the ski-jump bow like the British Queen Elizabeth class carriers."(sic)
No need as the F-35B can and already does launch with max payload from the deck of a LHA/LHD with a full deck run. A jump would mean the loss of two landing spots which would be of no benefit to the ACE of the MEU.
@@AA-xo9uw That fact that the Amphib will operate closer to the shore would depend on air superiority which will at least require the presence of a supercarrier.
The three UK 🇬🇧 small 'through-deck' cruisers - HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal were examples of this concept. HMS Queen Elisabeth and HMS Prince of Wales have been operating F35bs for some time.
The Japanese are working on their capacity and Australia should be looking seriously at getting a purpose built light carrier to share the air workload for coalition forces. Could the Canberra Class Ships be converted? Some say yes, many say no. But damn it would be nice to have a dozen F3-Bs on each of the Canberra and Adelaide, if mission required.
@@guylankin In the medium term it would be cool to see other F-35B users operating off the QE class ships as the USMC have already done.. the UK will likely will never have enough operational F-35s to fully complement two carriers of that size anyway.
the RN never wanted 'through-deck' cruisers they wanted CVA-01, but it was all the UK Gov would pay for
@@graveperil2169 QE class is much bigger than CVA-01.
@@carbon1255 it was a lot bigger than the Invincible's
From Montezuma to Tripoli takes on a whole new meaning when Tripoli can move
It's the Halls of Montezuma, and the Shores of Tripoli. Montezuma was a person, not a place.
C....concept? Did the whole of the Navy and Marine Corps forget about the Harrier already?
Nah, they didn’t forget. They just want to get better at it, and see how far they can push things with the new amphibs and the F-35. It isn’t quite as straightforward as saying, ‘we did it with Wasps and Harriers, so we can just do the same thing with Americas and F-35’s.’ Don’t let the word concept trick you into thinking it means the idea is new. It isn’t, but they need to try it with the new toys to make sure it will work the way they anticipate. Practice makes perfect, and all that.
LHA 6 and LHA 7 do not have well decks, so those can carry more aircraft. Those ships were designed more for a "light aircraft carrier" role, and that is the concept being tested. Those ships were designed to handle 20 F-35B, whereas the Wasp class LHDs were not specifically designed for the F35B and those have well decks. LHA 8 (under construction) will have a well deck and will carry less aircraft.
"Did the whole of the Navy and Marine Corps forget about the Harrier already?"(sic)
The Navy doesn't give a damn about the Harrier II. However, the Marine Corps will continue to operate the type until CY 2029.
Seems to me that this is just a modern and much more expensive incarnation of the "jeep" carriers that America built over 100 of during WWII.
Yes “Spig” Wead , CDR USN would love this love this!
I think of these as being closer to the light carriers of WWII if we're going to make those comparisons.
@@Chris-Christopher- You are 100% correct!
Sorry, yeah, sometimes I forget not everyone uses the same knicknames for items.
Jeep carriers was one of the knicknames for the light carriers.
@@deterrumeversor8680 I think the "jeep carriers"/escort carriers were different classes than the light carriers. The light carriers like the the Saipan-class were scaled down fleet carriers and were fast enough to keep up with the bigger ships. Whereas the escort carriers were slower, less armored, and had fewer planes.
I said I think they are more comparable to the light carriers of the time based on the relative capabilities of them to their larger full sized fleet carriers. The relative capabilities seem closer to what we have with Tripoli and modern carrier.
@@Chris-Christopher- Touche my good man, a mea culpa on my part, indeed you are talking about the ones built on cruiser hulls and not the ones built on cargo ship hulls as I was referring to.
The distinction being CVL for lights built on the cruiser hulls vs. CVE for the escorts built on the cargo ship hulls..
Although in my defense they were originally just designated CVs and were later re-designate as CVLs...
So I guess I just never caught that distinction.
When you look at water flowing through a storm drain, there is a measurement called the hydraulic radius which is the cross sectional area divided by the wetted perimeter. This means that the flow capacity of a pipe half full is the same as a pipe that is full. However for a small increase in flow beyond half full, things still work but the increase is not as much as the level would indicate. Here there is diminishing returns. Soon, attempts to increase flow will encounter negative returns and the flow then reduces to equal the amount at half full. A similar example is rush hour on a freeway. A few extra cars and the slightest disturbance to traffic results in a traffic jam. An aircraft carrier cannot afford to have a traffic jam on the deck. The Navy wants to know what combinations work and when things will get wonky. This is also dependent on crew training. If the procedures that used to work are no longer viable, it is time for analysis and training. Analysis for what has changed and training to increase proficiency. Sometimes, upgrades have unintended consequences.
As far as I can tell that's hogwash.
Assuming that there is minimal to no effect of friction meaning the liquid is not viscous, the flow of water should be directly related to the cross section of the pipe. This is true of all pressure pipes(not storm drains). Drainage pipes(like storm drains) work differently physically normally but are when flow is maximum are not as you describe and would be affected only as much as air flow is necessary through the pipe. Since air is much less dense than liquid, there is no ordinary way that even air flow can slow down the flow of liquid as much as you describe.
Then you are suggesting that other phenomena have the same properties and as examples you list traffic and personnel training without detailing the reasons for why there would be similarities. Again, I challenge such a suggestion. Unless you can identify exactly the characteristics and causes, you cannot suggest such things. So for example I would suggest that your faulty alternative examples would be more typical of introducing blockages like debris in a sewer line than what actually happens in a properly operating sewer line that merely is being filled with more liquid.
Furthermore, regarding your application of these concepts to determining optimal operations on a lightning carrier, I''d say that a well trained crew should be able to support near if not maximum physical capacity on the carrier if all supporting systems are well laid out and not some gradual degradation which your theory past half capacity as you suggest.
I was on the Reagan during enduring freedom and with the seabees prior to that for Iraqi freedom. I miss that brotherhood and being around those guys. Nothing felt more like family than my time in the Navy.
don`t you mean guys & GAL`s ?
@@EDD519 never heard of them. They were pregnant or in admin
@@garrettgonzales3556 your to OLD to comment !
Reminds me of the Star Fleet Battles Space Control Ship concept. Marines, full size infirmary with surgeries, heavy ground attack aircraft that double as CAP., can be serviced by oilers and supply ships, yet are smaller than the big carriers.
AND an AMPHIB BATTLE GROUP still has a nice selection of ships along with it at ANY GIVEN TIME :) soooo ;) *I* LIKE THE IDEA, fast ''slightly smaller'' groups to place in LOGISTICAL AREAS TO PLAY IN, but, *I* Was part of the GATOR NAVY in the 80s on the USS OKINAWA LPH3 ..... (RIP she was SUNK in like 91 SHIPX or wutever, but took a big boom torp to break her back...) so UMMMM I am partial to the MARINE SWIFT UBER SERVICE :) lol
Yeah I heard about them trying this. Cheers for the update.
This was the whole idea behind the America class Amphibs, that they could operate as an aircraft carrier through and through leaving the landing troops behind
The first two Flight 0 boats at least as the well deck returns on Flight I with LHA-8 Bougainville.
Just subbed I love how you keep a tight lip on things but ypu also teach us non military members new knowledge. Thank you for your service
That number of decoms in so short a time reminds me of the scary time at the end of Vietnam when we were removing worn-out Essex class hulls and the old cruisers and cans left over from WWII, in the period 1973-1975. It was so necessary, as I can see now, though it gave us young Navy men of that day some serious pause. We were looking at numbers of hulls available against the various (and scary) WWIII scenarios of the day, and the talk from our older shipmates scared the hell out of many of us 'boots'.
I'm just speculating based on declining recruitment. Perhaps the USN ship building scheduled is influenced by recruitment and retention expectations.
Interesting hypothesis.
Good stuff
I believe "Distributed Defense" is the new US Navy concept you are referring to.
I was Stationed on the USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3)
Amphibious assault ship. Back in the 90s.. We carried AV-8B Harrier, cobra attack, Sikorsky MH-60 Seahawks and Ch46s. Plus LCACs in the well deck.
nothing more fun than round the clock flight ops especially for the flight deck. My birthing on the boxer was next to the chain locker just under the flight deck, yay no sleep.
The Wake Island Avengers were the same squadron that deployed aboard the HMS QE last year, if I'm correct.
Yeah
VMFA-211 was also the first to embark at sea, aboard the Essex in September 2018 and the first to use the B in combat dropping PGMs on the Taliban in Afghanistan also in September of 2018.
Brillant! Out Foxtrot Standing!
16 F-35B's on an LHA? Almost doubled it's value. 😂
Navy leadership is approaching the point of criminal negligence in regards to shipbuilding. It won't take many years before the Chinese PLAN will be able to overwhelm our Navy unless the admirals come up with ONE plan, stick to it and convince Congress of the urgency of the situation.
...Australia looking over the Marines' shoulder, can I copy work?
Well of course, this is pathfinding for Japan and Australia.
Sadly we can't. Not efficiently anyway. The 27,000t Canberra class lacks _just enough_ capability to make this practical. The inclusion of the ramp was a production expediency; it's the flight deck's surfacing that is the real issue. We'd need to completely resurface our LHDs to be suitable for fixed wing VSTOL operation. Moreover, air group tonnage is already tight. At most we'd be able to deploy two flights of fours while sacrificing all but two of our embarked helicopters. We can't easily convert the lower stowage to support a fixed wing air group and even doing so would reduce the main capability of these vessels. These are still "small" amphibious assault ships with a deliberate focus on spearheading amphibious operations rather than flight operations.
That being said, acquiring the naval F35 variant was a serious option at the same time we were considering acquiring a third LHD fitted for supporting a small naval air group. Unfortunately this is a clear case of either-or. We just can't have both capabilities at acceptable strength at the same time on this size hull.
@@dylanwight5764 It certainly would be interesting to further investigate the possibility of upgrading the deck of the Canberra's. Have seen a video that suggests this could be done at a reasonable cost. Obviously the best option would be to procure another (or even better two) purpose built lightning carriers. Unfortunately Australia's shopping list is long and expensive. We need to get the Hunter Class Frigates moving or start building more Hobart Air Warfare Destroyers and get our orders for either Virginia's or Astute's in with our US or Britt friends. We certainly have no business in my mind trying to muddle our way through building our own nuclear powered boats.
@@dylanwight5764 Given that the Spanish Navy's Juan Carlos I operates harriers from it's deck, ¿wouldn't it be possible to accomodate F-35s?. Or are the Australian variants more different than I thought.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 I was about to answer this, and realised we probably shouldn't answer that.
With Australia getting Nuclear subs, I think a few of these small Multi-Role ships based on each coast would certainly help in the deterrence level around our coastline, able to launch F-35B strikes or land troops and equipment during an operation, they are certainly great ships.
I`m not sure but I think australia also bought into the F-35
We have these - our Canberra class can do this
@@gcharny8022 Didn`t even know we had this ship !
This move seems to clarify the strategy of the Australian Canberra class, which seemed out of place on initial acquisition.
This is going back to a light carrier. The Tripoli is much like a modern HMS Unicorn. I think that it is more effective than building large CV.
I like that concept.
I've been following this shift for some time and I think the idea might be to distribute small carriers around the ocean to act as mobile way stations/sensor nodes/ cost effective, flexible task forces. They can leverage powerful radars and Sensor/Int suites to function as a neural network for early warning, detection and targeting which can see and act well beyond the horizon in all directions. They can also form a chain of mobile airbases for aircraft originating in the U.S. that need to cross the pacific while also acting as QRF capable responders in the event that SHTF. Instead of a single point (a supercarrier) where air assets can originate from, there will be many mobile points and the smaller size of the LHD makes them more difficult to detect compared to the supercarriers. You can also push LHD's deeper into contested battlespace as their loss is less crippling than the loss of a super carrier. As an additional benefit, this would make resupply quicker, more flexible, and present less risk to the logistics train itself since the Navy could be less reliant on surface vessels for resupply operations. On top of that, since each LHD can take on a Marine contingent. Australia has had really good experiences with the LHD and the flexibility offered by the hangar decks. On top of that, each LHD can take on a Marine contingent. Australia has had really good experiences with the LHD and the flexibility offered by the hangar decks. Keeping a small marine contingent on each LHD with the option to switch mission profiles and onboard more (trading air assets to other LHD's for more marines and support craft) Marines would allow the Navy to rapidly locate grunt-power without needing to use specific ships which may or may-not be in ideal locations.
Some disadvantages are that LHD's are not nuclear and so have requirements for refueling which make them more vulnerable and the inability to leverage as large a strike package as a supercarrier. another is that F35B cannot land in a combat effective configuration. It needs to be mostly dry and have virtually no weapons on board to do so, which would necessitate the use of other air platforms, requiring them to be able to operate from LHD's as well. This could be mitigated through unmanned and attritable airframes and a daisy chain of LHC's could support rotary wing heavy lift resupply. As an additional benefit, this would make resupply quicker, more flexible, and present less risk to the logistics train itself since the Navy could be less reliant on surface vessels for resupply operations.
I'd like to see some anti-ship capabilities on the LHD's beyond just air assets. Even a small number of VLS, maybe in a mission pack configuration, would make it easier for the Navy to take advantage of targets of opportunity from distributed nodes and leverage that capacity (plus the launch of air assets) to effect rapid dominance a la the new "Mosaic" or "multi-domain" warfare strategy the Navy is becoming a part of. A combination of flag-ship super carriers supported by 5-7 LHD's, carrying 10-12 F35B's each, along with STOVL capable support craft (MQ's etc.) working as a networked team would be, imo, a very potent formula.
The Constellation fits really well into this model, as well. They are (hopefully) cheaper than Arleigh Burke and DDG X also integrates well as task force leads and arsenal ships.
Against a peer adversary, or at least one with capable missile systems like China and Iran (or a country purchasing from these countries), you can bet these lighting carriers would be first casualties in a conflict.
@@tonysu8860 That's sort of the point. You lose one super carrier, it's a huge blow to power projection. You lose 2,3,4 light carriers, the impact is severely diminished. Not to mention you have to find all those small carriers and then allocate the necessary resources to defeat them and you also need to know that another light carrier is not in a position to launch a counter strike on your flotilla as you attack one.
Seems like a perfect strike option. Leave the big flat decks for fixed wing dedicated fighters, and the smaller ones for vtol ground attack where the lesser performance from the VTOL isn't as much of a disadvantage.
you can also land aircraft on them if needs be with arrestors giving you more tactical flexibility with losses.
STOVL not VTOL
eeeh... it's especially for Ground attack that the STOVL will perform less.Bomb trucks are much heavier !! So they cannot take off with full loads in STOVL unassisted take offs
CATOBAR can launch with way more payload then STOVL can.. so if anything STOVL is way more suited for air to air loads then for bomb trucks
@@stijnvandamme76 I see the logic there. Aren't stovl usually lower performance and maneuverability due to the extra machinery? Although going fast and making eye peeling turns doesn't seem that important anymore in air to air combat. Maybe you just have to get the missiles to a launch location and fire them then go home.
oh that's a BIG DECK;)
I live in Denmark, one of my friends is serving on the USS Tripoli. Go Navy 💙
The Navy should meltdown all their LCS hulls to make more LHDs
Well done at not mispronouncing "big deck amphibious warship". :)
Why doesn't Congress reject the report and make them do another one until it matches the Navy's goals. I would bring the Chief of Navel Operations before the committee and have a Come To Jesus meeting with him about his reports.
Yeh I’ve been testing types of JSF strategy & deployment efficiency on a simulator based platform and yes! smaller carriers in larger numbers is the most efficient imo.. The primary unique feature the F-35 possesses (including sensor fusion) is VTOL capability. Without the F35 being the future default “stealthy eyes and ears” on the battlefield, We’d lose most battle scenarios as relying on SATCOM has too many risks. It’s true purpose in conjunction with the militaries future operations is a very smart and potent strategy if all redundancies can be addressed. Awesome concept :)
Small strike carriers are always handy.
We have met the enemy and they are us.
Feel that big deck energy
in theory, any ship capable of handling rotary aircraft take-off and landing may be able to handle F-35Bs
so a Ticondera-class guided missile cruiser may be able to handle a single (or two?) F-35B on board...
No so mucker, v/stol take off would damage the heli-deck, the engine is dam hot, and limit take off weight and range.
@@henryvagincourt4502they also said before that any fixed wing aircraft can never takeoff and land on a ship...but it was proven wrong...
...so if there's a will there's a way...
@@laurentitolledo1838 In Italy we have used ceramic material for best isolation of the heat.And angled deck for take off.This Is the concept american general are inventing😊.look Cavour and Trieste
@@MegaPino1970 yeah but in this case he means the flat deck on the back end of a frigate or such, of course the actually large deck ships already have that
Neat! Not sure if the marines can spare the deck and stores space, but interesting nonetheless.
maybeee if it was geared more twards the actual AIRCRAFT and their missions, THE MARINE AIR WING instead of the RECON MARINES or whichever group the boat carrying, (USS OKINAWA LPH3 when I was on her, we always had like 2 of the 3 companies or wutever of RECON MARINES :) the ones WITHOUT THE WELL DECKS that is, maybe gear them twards FAST FERIOUCIOUS FISTS ''battlegroups'' with the AIR WING marines and their stuff, instead of the ''RECON FOOTSOLDERS'' with all their gear and vehicles!! like on the well DOCK/swimming pool ships.... and position the FFF battlegroups around areas where CARRIER BATTLE GROUPS are ''thin''??
The lha/lhd are about the same size as an Essex class carrier
i assumed that was the plan all along
Put one in each carrier group to provide cap while the strikes are away
Exactly what the Japanese are doing with the Izumo class.
Still have to have 1-2 helos for vertical replenishment and SAR, and that is another part of the op test.
I call it "constructive ambiguity".
Don't forget the Seawolf.
.I was on the first LPH 9 concept 1973,secret run to Murmansk scared the hell out the Russians
No one in the government can add.
im actually kind of dumbfounded that we didnt hold on to our old essex and midway class carriers and convert them to other use ships after they were deemed too small to be fleet carriers they would of made good hospital ships with helicopters for support or landing and support ships for marines i can see how they would be dated now and phased out but for years they could of been useful and most of them were scrapped with lots of use time left availible also our fist supercarriers that were not nuclear if not worn out could of been repurposed likewise
Saving taxpayer money is not a priority for the military
They weren't decommissioned for being "too small to be fleet carriers." Midway could still operate over 70 aircraft when she was retired. The ships were decommissioned because they were getting too old to keep in service economically - the average age of an Essex at retirement was close to 40 years, and Midway lasted some 47 years in service. Even our supercarriers are only designed to last 50 years.
I haven't been aboard a modern super carrier but you can tour ships like the Midway in San Diego. The interiors and equipment are ancient. On the Midway you'll find some equipment that was typical of the 1960's. At some point you have to say that the interior design, the technology and systems are so old and degraded from exposure to the sea that it's not worthwhile to continue to keep in service. Maybe if sold to another country, it might make sense to retrofit but not in America. It's cheaper and better to simply build something new.
As you said this has been going on for over 25 years. Issues are POL as well as ammo stowage
Not to mention building subs for Australian Navy. Under the AUKUS deal.
Damn I was hoping to see an amphibious aircraft carrier!
interesting edit in that photo
I wonder how much stress the additional F-35 bravos place on the 'phib's onboard fuel?
They need a bunch of these "small carriers" but my guess they'll have to rework the elevator system for storage. That and not melting the deck.
Light Carrier
Neat idea. BTW, there's a typo in your title, you're missing the "s" in "Corps".
It would be really cool if they would have an awacs v-22 and a v-22 tanker to compliment this
I'm wondering if this is partly in response to the ballooning price tag and technical setbacks with the Ford class CVNs?
Also, what is an "unmanned" ship, exactly?
Basically just a bunch of vls on a barge
Jeep carriers 2- electric boogaloo
Finally building Elmo Zumwalt's Sea Control Ship.
I am curious if they do like the F-35b carrier idea whether they'll add a ski jump at some point.
No
Side stepping the escort carriers of WW2, the US Navy has been working on this sort of baby carrier idea using supersonic V/STOL aircraft since the Sea Control Ship program in the 1970s, with the big problem being NOT until the F-35B has there actually been a viable supersonic V/STOL fixed-wing aircraft in mass production to equip such a carrier with. The Harriers and Harrier IIs are high subsonic (the original smaller wing area harriers & sea harriers at least could exceed the speed of sound only in a shallow dive, the larger Harrier II has got a bit to much drag to manage that). The various essex class carriers that saw service into the early 1970s were the last real such carrier option the US Navy had, but they were restricted from carrying the largest/most modern of US Navy fighters (the F-4s could barely manage to safely operate from them, the F-14s definitely could not). One limitation on using a Wasp or America class assault ship as this sort of carrier is the flight decks lack the ski-jump the british carriers have, so the USMC F-35Bs cannot be launched with as much weight of fuel and ordnance as the ones in the royal navy.
It seems that whomever was in charge of Task Force Uniforms was moved to Task Force Shipbuilding.
What about taking the mobile landing platform and reconfigure it with a hanger deck and make a flat deck to the front of the ship. Put 2 elevators in and carry helicopters and,or harriers or 35b. They could be used in low conflict areas where assault ships aren't needed
Love to see the Navy keeping pace with China.
Will they be able to protect these small carriers the way they do with a CSG
I figured Canada would do this with an ice breaker hull to carry 6 f35 B and a few helos.
It's Marine Corps, sailor.
What is the comparable ship stores from one carrier to the other? How many missions worth of munitions and fuel before having to find a port?
Isn’t this a rehash of the strike carrier concept? I really believe the navy need a magazine or arsenal ship big and with nothing but VLS pods for hundreds or maybe thousands of missiles to prevent saturation attacks and give task groups more missiles
USN explains that smaller carriers are vulnerable to attack and more expensive for reduced capability.
Maybe they could build a submarine carrier, a super carrier that has the capacity to launch mini submarines and have them re-dock again for replenishment.
Cheaper carriers is an awesome idea. But an LHA really isn't *that* much cheaper than a full carrier, when you consider how much less it can do in terms of sorties per day, and planes in the air.
I think we'll see light aircraft carriers really catch on when we have lighter aircraft to carry. That means being able to scale down elevators, hangars, fuel storage, etc. And I think that means a 100% drone UCAV carrier if you want something "cheep n cheerful" like the WW2 escort carriers.
We need vertical launch f35s on smaller stealth aircraft carriers
The USMC deployed on the British carrier Queen Elizabeth and during its deployment around the globe. These ships would be a great add to the USMC.
It's a good start, but there should really be a dedicated light carrier around the 900ft long and in the 55-60k ton range with the capabilty to hold 24 F-35s and 24 F/A-18s with a couple of E2s and a new designed carrier-based tanker aircraft at max load. It should be nuclear powered with the smallest reactor possible that can generate enough power to push the thing to as close to 35 knots as possible. you build 6 - 8 of those and stack them with a handful of escorts with the goal to maintain pressure for 30 to 90 days of hard combat long enough to bring in a couple of the fleet carriers and more submarines and then rotate the light carriers back into an air coverage task kind of like how the horse cavalry was used in the old old days. I would also put in a large number of missile batteries for fleet defense to augment its escort.
LHA America number 6 and 7 has exceptional space for aviation components rather than a split 70/30 air/marine. It's 100 percent fighter jet, so to test a small "Yorktown" sized F35 predominantly fighter aircraft carrier. Extremely deadly with 20, f35s
It’s great and all projecting air superiority, SEAD/DEAD, and all other airborne offensive capabilities however, force projection seems lacking. Might be the reason why certain landing ships are on the chopping block.
Get rid of those well deck. It will give them more room.
Some of them already did.
Do you know how dangerous it is being fully honest with congress?
👍🏼
I find it strange the record is 16 considering there are pictures on the internet of the Tripoli with 20 F-35s on her deck. Perhaps those were just in transit and 16 is the record for operations? Just curious
I will guess 18-19. Along with enough parts to do major repairs and maintenance.
Worked in WW2. The support carriers truly gave the Japanese headaches. They could pop up anywhere in combat theater.
From what I know of military procurement, which I'll admit is not much. The reason the Navy is giving all over the place numbers for the amounts of money they need, if because they really have no idea.
Not a suprise, the ship builders what to build big ships. And that vetos any "plan"
for light carrier it be a good idea to have cruiser carrier a bit like russia did
Why did the Escort Carrier disappear in the US Arsenal in the first place?
The Escort Carriers were meant for fighting submarines. When subs went nuclear powered and never surfaced, the carriers meant to find and sink them on the surface were pretty much useless. Fixed wing light carriers have always been a thing, but only the Harrier and the F-35B have made them work again.
What are the "large and medium unmanned surface vessels"?
I expect the large one would be yet another rehashing of the Arsenal Ship concept - take as big a hull as practical, stuff it full of as many VLS cells as possible, slave it to a Burke or Tico for remote control and firing.
Nationalize shipyards and build up jobs for the expansion of shipyards and overall fleet size
This is Kool but there are only Two LHA Commissioned With one under construction. Is the Wasp class LHD capable of carrying the F35?
The US is going to need to figure out a way to operate a concept similar to the old escort carriers of WWII if we expect to hold up in a near peer conflict in the Pacific. The supercarriers are going to be under immense pressure and be GIANT targets. Naval leaders are going to have situations where they would like some airpower available but not want to risk a supercarrier.
Except that rebel occupied china lacks the force projection to actually threaten carriers unless they pull up to their front door. They can't even independently feed their own people. Simply cutting off sea imports puts a noose around their neck.
Congress should demand a year by year plan showing the path forward from this year to the 360 ships by type. The congress should then make a law that at the end of every year, the number of ships they are behind by type (to avoid tugboats counting to trick the numbers) in the plan is the number of admirals that will be fired by lottery with a loss of all retirement benefits. Roman decimation style. I would wager the navy would start getting much better (or at least more realistic) at fleet planning, might even make them willing to purchase cheaper off the shelf solutions like non-nuclear submarines which they have been resistant to.
Pathfinding for Japan. The meatball has carriers again.
Tripoli is the second America class, correct? They are a modified Wasp class that forgoes the Well Deck for an additional aviation hanger deck. I thought America and Tripoli are intended to each carry 22 F-35B’s? The one drawback to the return to the Light or Escort Carrier concept is the F-35B’s when operating from them suffer some limitations in fuel or armament load out. So ideally to get the most out of them as small Carriers they would need to carry their own aerial tankers to top off the strike after takeoff. How close are they to getting the Tanker variant of the V-22 working? Because that’s going to be the must have.
VARS funding was deleted from the budget beginning in FY2020. Funding has little to no chance of being reinstated until after Berger gets replaced.
Your headline should read "Marine Corps Test New Lightning Carrier Concept"
Did I understand correctly that 20 is the max ON-deck while still leaving room for a take-off run? Then why not stick some below deck, arm and fuel them down there, and as space clears on the flight deck, bring them up and launch them as well. Maybe you could operate 20 or even 25? I think I remember the Navy's carrier doctrine is to fuel and load on the flight deck, but if we're in a really serious world war, we might want to revisit the doctrine if things get hairy. Also, I know carriers always like to carry a few helos--but in a pinch--have the destroyers carry those. Especially if these LHAs are going to be operating a regular carrier task force to enhance it's air strike power, or are in an area where there is a lot of land-based auxiliary air support, like in the area around Taiwan.