USN LHA/LHD question: why no ski-jump?

Al. So apologies

More than excepted and me to you my friend if I have upset you!!

M’point (if such there was) was that the US ain’t unique in failing to avoid this pitfall.

I concur and support what you say brother!!

Regards
Pioneer

I am far from being a spam basher! (how you came to this conclusion has me f@%$*&)

Twasn’t meant as an accusation more general adjective than specific noun but I obviously phrased poorly since I allowed you to take offence. So apologies

[QUOTE=Pioneer;1634717]but ‘unfair and dangerously self-deluded‘?:( please

Indeed from (at least) two angles

Firstly non-US looking down t’nose at US and assuming that bigger budget always equals waste and pie-in-the-sky-thinking

Secondly US looking at US and thinking ‘why are we doing this when no one else is?’

I have operated with the American military operationally on more than one occasion, I have witnessed what I have stated!

I am absolutely certain that it exists and am more than prepared to take your word on it. M’point (if such there was) was that the US ain’t unique in failing to avoid this pitfall.

You do know that an ESG will never be sent into a combat situation without a CSG.

Don’t bother he is clearly deluded and set in his beliefs.

You do know that an ESG will never be sent into a combat situation without a CSG.

You make a valid point my friend, which I am well aware!
But the near future enemy I envisage will not play by the United States (navy`s) game!

I enjoy spam bashing as much as the next man but to accuse them of this in isolation seems both unfair and dangerously self-deluded

Your opinion is yours my friend!
I am far from being a spam basher! (how you came to this conclusion has me f@%$*&)
but ‘unfair and dangerously self-deluded‘?:( please
I will not endeavor to get into a childish slogging match. All I will say, is that I have operated with the American military operationally on more than one occasion, I have witnessed what I have stated!

I should clearly state that I have no problem with technological improvements on the modern battlefield (even though I tend to carry more AA batteries than bullets:D), in fact I support it, but it will not always substitute hard combat proven lessons.

Regards
Pioneer

but it appears to be an American trait to forget lessons learn as they acquire technology!

I enjoy spam bashing as much as the next man but to accuse them of this in isolation seems both unfair and dangerously self-deluded

Or it could be that with time, that the USN & USMC have lost sight of the importance of those 2,200 Marines and their equipment that people seem to conveniently forget are sitting below decks. will need direct CAS and BAI in any conventional opposed amphibious landing (as opposed to fighting insurgents and guerrillas! It is unfortunate, but it appears to be an American trait to forget lessons learn as they acquire technology!

Regards
Pioneer

You do know that an ESG will never be sent into a combat situation without a CSG.

Or it could be that they don’t have delusions of them being aircraft carriers, know the Harrier’s role is as a sort of super attack helicopter, and know that having a little extra comfort for the (very small) Harrier detachment is secondary to losing 2 Ospreys to transport the up to 2200 Marines and their equipment that people seem to conveniently forget are sitting below decks.

Or it could be that with time, that the USN & USMC have lost sight of the importance of those 2,200 Marines and their equipment that people seem to conveniently forget are sitting below decks. will need direct CAS and BAI in any conventional opposed amphibious landing (as opposed to fighting insurgents and guerrillas! It is unfortunate, but it appears to be an American trait to forget lessons learn as they acquire technology!

Regards
Pioneer

Or it could be that they don’t have delusions of them being aircraft carriers, know the Harrier’s role is as a sort of super attack helicopter, and know that having a little extra comfort for the (very small) Harrier detachment is secondary to losing 2 Ospreys to transport the up to 2200 Marines and their equipment that people seem to conveniently forget are sitting below decks.

i think it would be possible to design a small ski jump for the harriers/F-35Bs that would only take away one helo spot. maybe it wouldn’t be a full 12 degree ramp like on the ark royal, but even a smaller 6 degree ramp could offer serious take-off advantages for the fixed wing aircraft that are deployed on these ships.

the US military is the only one in the world that regularly deploys fixed wing aircraft on non-CATOBAR/non-ski-jump equipped flat-tops. but ultimately, the US navy has the luxury of being so damn large that they can afford to have an entire fleet of flat-tops solely dedicated to the assualt role without worrying about getting the maximum efficiency out of the token fixed wing planes that they deploy alongside the helos. in other navies, flat tops have to be a lot more flexible and less specialized because they are so scarce to begin with.

that said, i still think politics is at play to a certain degree in that the US navy does not want to demonstrate the effectiveness of a smaller ski-jump/STOVL carrier for fear that it could somehow threaten their precious CATOBAR beasts.

I`m with you brother!!
I have no doubt the USN at the end of the day are playing politics over capability!!
Their deep routed fear that Congress would view any LHD/LHA as an aircraft, threatening their super carriers has become prolific within the U.S Navy!

Regards
Pioneer

Note that Juan Carlos I adds an aircraft parking spot on each side of the stern elevator, while Principe de Asturias has more cut-away flight deck there.

Both have one aircraft-length cut away aft of the elevator.

So JCI has less lost flight deck than PdA, and is a bigger ship as well.

Its a lot more pronounced on JCI.

I really liked how they designed the ski-ramp to helicopter operations the least amount possible. Rear elevator configuration has a lot to be desired though. Wastes a lot of space.

Agreed, but the Spanish must like it: the BPE seems to follow the design of their light aircraft carrier ‘Principe de Asturias’ in that respect (which by the way was in turn based on the USN ‘Sea Control Ship’ design).

B
No, we’re the only one to deploy fixed wing CAS aircraft to our amphibious assault ships.

The British, Spanish, Italian, and Indian (who are going away from STOVL BTW) Harriers have a primary role of defending the escort fleet against bomber attack.

but that does not make what i said untrue. the US military [b]IS[/b] the only military in the world that regularly operates fixed wing aircraft from non-CATOBAR/non-ski-jump equipped flat-tops.

and the indians are moving from STOVL to STOBAR and perhaps eventually to CATOBAR, either way, their current flat-top and the next two at the very least will continue to employ ski-jumps.

Rear elevator configuration has a lot to be desired though. Wastes a lot of space.

the rear deck arrangement of the juan carlos is a bit of a head scratcher for me as well. what is the deal with all that wasted space at the stern of the ship? are they planning to add a good deal of weapons systems back there at a later date?

I really liked how they designed the ski-ramp to helicopter operations the least amount possible. Rear elevator configuration has a lot to be desired though. Wastes a lot of space.

LHD with ski jump (Spanish BPE Juan Carlos I)

i think it would be possible to design a small ski jump for the harriers/F-35Bs that would only take away one helo spot. maybe it wouldn’t be a full 12 degree ramp like on the ark royal, but even a smaller 6 degree ramp could offer serious take-off advantages for the fixed wing aircraft that are deployed on these ships.

But serious disadvantages for the ship’s missions which is delivering Marines tot he battlefield.

the US military is the only one in the world that regularly deploys fixed wing aircraft on non-CATOBAR/non-ski-jump equipped flat-tops.

No, we’re the only one to deploy fixed wing CAS aircraft to our amphibious assault ships.

The British, Spanish, Italian, and Indian (who are going away from STOVL BTW) Harriers have a primary role of defending the escort fleet against bomber attack.

that said, i still think politics is at play to a certain degree in that the US navy does not want to demonstrate the effectiveness of a smaller ski-jump/STOVL carrier for fear that it could somehow threaten their precious CATOBAR beasts.

Yes we can show them how awesome it is to spend the same amount of money on an aircraft with 70% of the capability and a AEW&C helicopter which requires 3 of them to do the same job as a Hawkeye.

i think it would be possible to design a small ski jump for the harriers/F-35Bs that would only take away one helo spot. maybe it wouldn’t be a full 12 degree ramp like on the ark royal, but even a smaller 6 degree ramp could offer serious take-off advantages for the fixed wing aircraft that are deployed on these ships.

the US military is the only one in the world that regularly deploys fixed wing aircraft on non-CATOBAR/non-ski-jump equipped flat-tops. but ultimately, the US navy has the luxury of being so damn large that they can afford to have an entire fleet of flat-tops solely dedicated to the assualt role without worrying about getting the maximum efficiency out of the token fixed wing planes that they deploy alongside the helos. in other navies, flat tops have to be a lot more flexible and less specialized because they are so scarce to begin with.

that said, i still think politics is at play to a certain degree in that the US navy does not want to demonstrate the effectiveness of a smaller ski-jump/STOVL carrier for fear that it could somehow threaten their precious CATOBAR beasts.

Great article, thanks for posting it obi wan.

So American navy offcials won’t install ski-jumps because they don’t like the way they look? That seems like a load of BS to me. What designer of military hardware would ever sacrafice capability for aesthetics? These machines are designed to fight and win wars, not take the crown in a beauty pagent.

As for the discrepancy between a ski jump occupying 1 or 3 landing spots, I’d have to side with those who say 1. A ski jump would not need to occupy the entire bow ala the kuznetsov or other similar ships, it could just be a smaller ramp on one side of the vessel as seen on the Invincibles.

The ski jump on the invincible would take up two spots. So why don’t have one.

1) The ship is designed around the 1800 rifleman below deck, not 10 or so Harrier pilots. 2 spots lost equal less cargo and air assault sorties and probably two fewer Ospreys.

2) Being designed for helicopters its doesn’t have the magazine to be a carrier anyway. During OEF, they had use the LCACs to run supply sorties.

There’s free software available for download, such as IrfanView, which does editing.

how do you scale down a photo? This one is not ideal i know. i will edit if you tell me how to do it.

Thanks

If you haven’t got something like Photoshop then you can load it up in MS paint, go to the Image menu, attributes and change the height and width, save, job done.