.jpg)
the specification are here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx-specs.htm
but the length is 844 or 921 feet?
The more interesting news are the following ship that, maybe, will be very different
America class’ future remains undecided
Upcoming LHAs may operate under Military Sealift Command
By Philip Ewing – [email]pewing@militarytimes.com[/email]
Posted : July 21, 2008
The USS America Carrier Veterans Association sent a letter to Navy Secretary Donald Winter on July 5, thanking him for putting their old ship’s name on the new amphibious assault ship previously known only as LHA 6. The break in tradition — of naming big-deck gators after famous Marine Corps battles — was just the most recent in a series of unusual details about the ship.
It has gas turbines, instead of steam boilers like its predecessors. It has no floodable well deck. It’s designed to carry more strike fighters than any previous amphib, giving the Marine Corps its own “aircraft carrier” to accompany task groups of traditional gators. And ultimately, the America may be the only ship of its kind.
Although plans call for the Navy to buy another ship similar to the America — which will form the “America class,” a spokeswoman with Naval Sea Systems Command confirmed — the second ship could nonetheless be radically different. It could have a similar design, but not be a warship. Instead, the second America could be built to civilian standards, not military; have a civilian crew and master; and operate under Military Sealift Command.
Under that scenario, it would have no built-in weapons, likely have a radically different internal design from the first America and be operated more like an MSC auxiliary than a Navy warship.
Then again, that could all change.
‘Very much in flux’
Pentagon planners have gone back and forth about what will be known as the America class, originally called the LHA(R) and envisioned as an aviation-centric replacement for the Tarawa-class gators. Originally, the second America was planned definitively as a Navy warship, so the Marine Corps could have one LHA for each coast, but it lost its funding in 2006 in favor of other ships.
In the Navy’s most recent shipbuilding plan, the second LHA re-emerged as part of the Maritime Preposition Force (Future), a planned squadron of less-robust auxiliary ships that would support an amphibious invasion after full-fledged warships had done the fighting.
But analysts said some Navy and Marine Corps leaders still would prefer at least two warships, as opposed to the America and MSC follow-ons. That, in turn, could affect the plan for the new MPF(F) ships and, potentially, the Pentagon’s underlying ideas about sea basing.
“The plan is very much in flux,” said Robert Work, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
“There are arguments in favor of both” warships and MSC ships, naval author Norman Polmar said.
Winter’s spokeswoman, Capt. Beci Brenton, said Winter meets frequently with Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead to discuss gator requirements. She said July 9 that Winter continues to support the existing plan for a follow-on LHA(R) to be an MSC ship.
An LHA 7’s bigger flight deck and ability to carry more weapons and aviation fuel would give the Navy another warship built specifically to launch and support the new F-35B Lighting II joint strike fighter.
Rather than the MSC option, Work said he thought the Navy should add more America-class warships — he compared them to the escort carriers of World War II, which was the last time a smaller ship could carry the same front-line strike aircraft as a full-size fleet carrier. The AV-8B Harriers carried today by Wasp-class gators can’t fly as far or as fast as the F-35B — or pack as big a punch.
In their current configurations, the Wasps can’t support F-35Bs, Navy officials said. The Lighting II has a very powerful engine, and commanders worry that the jet blast could overheat and even warp the flight decks of today’s gators and carriers, although those effects won’t be clear until the first F-35B is tested on a ship, around 2010.
Navy spokesman Lt. Clay Doss said the eight Wasp-class gators — including the gas-turbine powered Makin Island, now under construction — would be augmented to handle the F-35B, starting with the Bataan. When the modifications are complete, the Navy plans for each Wasp-class ship to be able to carry six F-35Bs, Doss said.
By: verbatim - 20th September 2010 at 23:16
Well, in the Marine Corps and Navy lexicon LPD, LHD and so on are not neither mutually exclusive nor optional.
All LHDs have like their main reason to provide vertical lift, and command and controls functions for the amphibious assualt.
All LPD should provide core logistic support, second wave anphibious assault, and with LPD-17 four ships out of eight will provide command and control functions as well, that’s the reason behind the four Harpers Ferry logistic LSDs (being four San Antonio class ships deprived in logistic capabilities to make room for the C3I centre, they put an Harper Ferry beside a C3I-augmented San Antonio).
First assault is demanded to an LHD and a Widbey Island class LSD, sencond wave and sustainment is mostly done by LPDs, plus assets from an LHD, optionally an Harper Ferry class, and other ships.
About LHA6: they are purchasing lots of F-35B, they will need some good ferry to move them on theatre, and will need some technical facilities, but they are not giving up the LHD or LHA main role, i.e. the air assault.
By: RVFHarrier - 18th September 2010 at 18:10
It would just make more sense to me to use dedicated LPDs in the form of the San Antonio and to either adapt the current Makin Island design to make it a dedicated medium-sized strike carrier or develop a new design for a ~40,000t carrier for USMC needs. Even just dedicate one or two of the CVNs for USMC usage; if the US could bring its self to do it, it could also buy off the shelf from Europe, but I don’t see that happening.
It strikes me as a case of ‘well we can, so we will’. The USN is starting to now lose its seemingly bottomless pit of funding and so should start thinking about cost effectiveness sooner rather than later, we already saw what happened with DDG-1000 and with CVN-21 literally eating money the USN is just like the rest of us now in terms of having to make the best use of its money. I just don’t see LHDs being the best use of increasingly finite funding.
By: Geoff_B - 18th September 2010 at 17:29
I suppose with the slowly reducing CVN numbers, there comes a point that a ARG may need to deploy on a tactical basis without the benefit of a CGB providing top cover. Africa, South America, etc, places where USMC could provide its own organic air support, without the need for its big brother CVN back up.
My point was as these are dedicate ships for the USMC air wing, they could have improved the design to account for the operation of their new aircraft types.
By: RVFHarrier - 18th September 2010 at 16:35
I have to admit, I struggle to see the point.
Are the San Antonios so inadequate for amphibious assault that the US needs to instead spend billions designing and building these? It begs the question as to why the San Antonios weren’t rectified or cancelled if that’s the case, or if the ships were fine but the US just needed more amphibious capability as to why more San Antonios weren’t just purchased.
Is the air cover/strike capability provided by the Carrier Strike Group so inadequate that the US needs to instead spend billions designing and building these? It begs the question as to, first of all, WHY the US would consider 11 x 90 aircraft inadequate for any plausible scenario but mostly as to why they’re spending even more billions (upwards of $40b last time I checked on mostly R&D) on the new CVN-21 and then LHA-6 too.
For a country that can’t afford both a dedicated carrier and a dedicated LPD, a ship like this (albeit likely on a smaller scale) would be the best trade off; for the most financially blessed Navy on Earth this just seems like pointless inefficiency given this is not going to come anywhere close to providing the air cover of a CVN or going to be able to provide the amphibious capability of a proper LPD such as the San Antonio at anywhere near the cost effectiveness.
Is there any genuine benefit to the US buying these LHDs, that they couldn’t get from instead just going with the two dedicated role ships, that I’m missing here? I admit I do like them, they’re awesome looking ships, but I can’t justify them.
By: Obi Wan Russell - 18th September 2010 at 15:43
Actually I did them some time ago, just been waiting for the right time to post them!;):D
By: Geoff_B - 18th September 2010 at 14:25
Yes something along those lines.
Quick work 😀
By: Obi Wan Russell - 18th September 2010 at 13:40
If the America class is optomised for Air operations especially for the F-35B & CV-22 is the revised Wasp design the best for the job.
Just wondering if they should really look at incorporating features from the UKs CVF design to improve the potential of these air operations.
Fit sponsons to increase deck parking and aircraft movement without fowling the actual flight deck area. Utilise the sponsons for Vertical landing keeping the flight line clear for F-35 runs. Landing spots on the sponson can be configured to vent out the excess heat without an adverse effect on the decks below. Add ski-jump & JBD to improve F-35B performance. extended flight deck over the stern so the B’s can do a rolling landing which appears to be the preferred option for carry back.
Yes i know the USN would have kittens complaining that it might threaten their super carriers, but the traditional LHD layout is not really efficient for flight ops with the new airgroups due to be adopted by the USMC. The inovations are there and the benefits obvious, it just appears that they could do better than just the bog standard LHD layout with a ship which is focused on supporting the Marine airgroup
Do you mean something like this?
As the USN is only intending to buy the first two or three America class in the non-well deck version before reverting to well-deck versions, these first two or three ships can be dedicated to F-35B ops as their primary mission. The USN will not be short of amphibs to carry troops and helos in addition to these ships. The argument that the jets will have to take second place to the troop carrying helos doesn’t apply here, they will carry troops and helos but as an additional force to those carried by other LHA/LHDs in the force.
By: Geoff_B - 18th September 2010 at 12:09
If the America class is optomised for Air operations especially for the F-35B & CV-22 is the revised Wasp design the best for the job.
Just wondering if they should really look at incorporating features from the UKs CVF design to improve the potential of these air operations.
Fit sponsons to increase deck parking and aircraft movement without fowling the actual flight deck area. Utilise the sponsons for Vertical landing keeping the flight line clear for F-35 runs. Landing spots on the sponson can be configured to vent out the excess heat without an adverse effect on the decks below. Add ski-jump & JBD to improve F-35B performance. extended flight deck over the stern so the B’s can do a rolling landing which appears to be the preferred option for carry back.
Yes i know the USN would have kittens complaining that it might threaten their super carriers, but the traditional LHD layout is not really efficient for flight ops with the new airgroups due to be adopted by the USMC. The inovations are there and the benefits obvious, it just appears that they could do better than just the bog standard LHD layout with a ship which is focused on supporting the Marine airgroup
By: kev 99 - 29th August 2008 at 08:44
so that is the general consensus then about no ki jumps on these ships??? The Marimes do not want these things looked at as aircraft carriers?
It’s designed to carry more strike fighters than any previous amphib, giving the Marine Corps its own “aircraft carrier” to accompany task groups of traditional gators. And ultimately, the America may be the only ship of its kind.
Given statements like this I think it would be very difficult to look at these things anyway other than as aircraft carriers.
By: StevoJH - 29th August 2008 at 04:31
so that is the general consensus then about no ki jumps on these ships??? The Marimes do not want these things looked at as aircraft carriers?
I think that carrying and launching Harriers is a secondary function of these ships and the USN would rather use the space to store more helicopters.
By: bgnewf - 29th August 2008 at 01:21
so that is the general consensus then about no ki jumps on these ships??? The Marimes do not want these things looked at as aircraft carriers?
By: PMN1 - 28th August 2008 at 20:58
The question of a CVF for the US came up on the PPRUNE board, dont have the link to there but have this link.
By: swerve - 21st August 2008 at 10:24
For a smallish navy, I think LHDs can make sense. E.g. Spain, which is building one LHD intending to use it as an auxiliary carrier when their sole dedicated carrier is in refit, or Australia, which is buying two LHDs which will be the bulk of its amphibious fleet. But for a navy the size of the USN, I agree entirely.
The RN has no LHDs. LPHs (or rather, one LPH & sometimes a STOVL carrier operating as an LPH), LPDs & LSDs.
By: Distiller - 21st August 2008 at 06:24
And yet still no skijump!!!!!
I know its U.S naval politics, when it comes to this matter.
What with the Navy’s paranoia, that Congress might see this STOL capability as a cheaper alternative and so threat to its super carriers…………….
But the Marines must be so restricted, to the full capability of its Harrier fleet at sea, in terms of range and payload.Regards
Pioneer
The ******* inventions LHD and LHA are doing all the restricting themselves, by carrying three different vehicle classes with three different operational characteristics. Typical peace-time cost savings. In war you’d want only LPDs and LPHs!
By: Pioneer - 20th August 2008 at 23:23
And yet still no skijump!!!!!
I know its U.S naval politics, when it comes to this matter.
What with the Navy’s paranoia, that Congress might see this STOL capability as a cheaper alternative and so threat to its super carriers…………….
But the Marines must be so restricted, to the full capability of its Harrier fleet at sea, in terms of range and payload.
Regards
Pioneer
By: Distiller - 20th August 2008 at 19:31
A LHA-7 built to civilian standards doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Too much effort. If they want just an aux carrier, a re-fitted container ship would do as well.
The only justification for LHA-6 is the F-35B. But then the justification for Marine TacAv is shoddy (just my personal opinion). Thing is, that the whole Navy shipbuilding plan (except the SSNs) is pretty shot. LHA-6 is part Marines gone wild, part the big Navy’s desire to have more carriers (since they can’t get more CVNs). The result of a total lack of viable and realistic strategy and doctrines.
Sign In
August 20, 2008 at 2:27 pm