Just after the landing:

Most people expect F35C to be about $25 million each less than STOVL F35B.
F35C will be considerably cheaper to operate than STOVL F35B.

On what basis?

I’ve started asking everyone who quotes that figure for their source. All I’ve had so far are newspaper stories. It seems to have been plucked out of the air.

What is your source?

Blind faith, wishful thinking, and a total refusal to accept any fact that contradicts the first two.

I was always confused about LPD vs LSD, now I’m even more so.

The confusion can be cleared up if you consider the context in which each type was developed.

In WW2 the USN faced the prospect of having to conduct a series of large-scale amphibious landings across the Pacific Ocean (and in Europe). They lacked large, purpose-designed landing craft (essential for the distances involved), but had lots of conventional freighter & passenger ships that had been “taken up from trade”. These were redesignated as “Attack Transports” (APA, later “Amphibious Transports” LPA) and “Attack Cargo Ships” (AKA, later “Amphibious Cargo Ships” LKA)

Building a lot of LSTs could alleviate this issue, but most Pacific islands had coral reefs that would prevent LSTs from reaching the beaches… thus a lot of small landing craft were needed.

The solution was the LSD… a large cross-ocean ship that could carry both a decent number of troops and a large number of small landing craft (that could land all or most of the troop complement in one wave). This combination could put a lot of troops on the beach quickly (to seize a beach-head), and then the boats could come to the conventional transports and load their troops in several waves to stabilize the beach-head and expand it enough to allow a temporary pier system to be built).

This solution worked, but there were problems in the second phase of operations… in order to load the landing craft quickly, the troops climbed down nets and/or rope ladders (and a few stair sets) to the craft beside the transport… which led to a large number of deaths & injuries due to falls into the ocean or the landing craft.

Given the time-frames, little could be done then… nor was the funding available afterwards, leading to the same situation during the Korean War (save that there were more port facilities available).

During and after the KW, the US Navy began (and continued) to receive adequate funding, and designed a ship to replace the conventional transports… and the issue of loading troops was addressed by including a smaller dock to allow safer loading.

As the ships were to replace the transports, they had large troop capacities, and were also designated transports… but the basic concept remained: the LSDs were to land a powerful initial attack wave, and the LPDs were to re-enforce and support that attack, and to provide a sustained force to expand the beach-head.

The “confusion of roles & designation” comes with smaller navies that cannot afford both types, and which create hybrid ships that fit in between the types. Thus, they are often designated according to their assigned slot in their navy’s OOB, not according to their design features.

In the USN, the difference between a LSD and a LPD is very clear, and is clearly stated in the full name of the ship type.

LSD = Dock Landing Ship
LPD = Amphibious Transport, Dock

In a LSD the important feature is the docking well.
In a LPD the important feature is the troop/equipment capacity (averaging twice that of contemporary LSDs).

USN LSD (Dock Landing Ship) classes:

Thomaston, 8 units, commissioned 1954-57
Displacement 11,270 tons full; overall length 510′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 391′, width 48′
Troop capacity 340

Anchorage, 5 units, commissioned 1969-72
Displacement 13,700 tons full; overall length 553′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 430′, width 50′
Troop capacity 375

Whidbey Island, 8 units, commissioned 1985-92
Displacement 16,300 tons full; overall length 609′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 440′, width 50′
Troops capacity 450 + 100 surge

Harpers Ferry LSD-CV (Cargo Variant), 4 units, commissioned 1995-98
Displacement 16,500 tons full; overall length 609′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 220′, width 50′
Troops capacity 400 + 100 surge

USN LPD (Amphibious Transport, Dock) classes:

Raleigh, 2 units, commissioned 1962-63
Displacement 13,900 tons full; overall length 522′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 168′, width 50′
Troop capacity 930

Austin, 12 units, commissioned 1965-71
Displacement 16,900 tons full; overall length 570′, beam 84′
Docking well: length 168′, width 50′
Troop capacity 930 (840 + 90 Flag accommodation in 4th through 10th units)

San Antonio, 5 units (5 more building), commissioned 2006-?
Displacement 25,300 tons full; overall length 684′, beam 105′
Docking well: “similar to LPD-4” (length 168′, width 50′)
Troop capacity 700 + 100 surge
Double vehicle storage capacity and aviation capability vs Austin class.

the funny thing is that even though Mum doesn’t know where she is from one day to the next,she remembers her time at Netheravon quite clearly –

Dementia (especially Alzheimer’s) affects short-term memory first, then progresses backwards.

Her earliest memories will last longest.

Maybe historical should be replaced with hysterical?

This is all I can see of the comments…

We’re sorry but reader comments are currently unavailable.

Depends on when its last major airframe inspection was, and the remaining fatigue life of the main airframe components.

Looks like a fantastic airshow Paul.. excellent variety. And that Sabre looks stunning in those markings.

Is the Hudson a flyer?

Note the lead aircraft in the first group formation photo.