First of all, the term “L-class boats” refers to WWI submarines, not modern LHD/LHA amphibious ships.

the term “L-class” has referred to a variety of different submarine and surface combatant classes over the years, but i’ll be sure to fully type out “LHA/LHD amphibious ships” in the future to avoid confusing you.

Second of all, there’s no merit to a “pop-up ski-jump,” as a useful ski-jump would be exceptionally large.

why? the ski-jumps on the invincible class carriers have proven themselves to be quite useful and are not exceptionally large.

I’m saying that the technology incorporated in the M777/Excalibur 155mm howitzer and HIMARS/Guided MLRS are a better fire support solution (i.e. precise and timely) than waiting for the untimely arrival of fixed wing airplanes. The Marines are going to have those artillery assets anyway, so beef up that capability instead of squandering resources on a second-best fixed wing CAS solution. Its a matter of which system provides the best bang for the buck, especially when Marine lives are on the line.

but do you believe that operating fixed wing aircraft off of the gators offers any benefit or is it a vain waste by the marines merely to cling to some unnecessary prestige? i know that you think ground based artillery support is a better solution for the scenarios you’re describing, but what i’m interested in knowing is whether or not you think that deploying STOVL aircraft on the L class ships is something that should be done away with entirely or is there some benefit in maintaining that capability (and even increasing it in the case of the new america class) into the future?

CAS during initial littoral operations will come from F/A-18s flying from CVNs (or USAF assets), not a pitiful handful of AV-8Bs or F-35Bs with no fuel supplies and even fewer munitions flying from L-class ships.

then why does the USMC even bother to operate AV-8Bs from the decks of those ships? and why is the new USS America (LHA-6) projected to regularly deploy with 10 F-35Bs (a 66% increase in combat aircraft)? if these STOVL aircraft are worthless to the mission of landing and supporting marines ashore, why bother with them? why design future ships to hold and operate even more of them?

my suspicion is that these STOVL aircraft do have some value to the marines operating off of the L-class ships, and that is the reason they continue to operate and train with STOVL aircraft off of such ships. it is also my suspicion that the marines would very much like to have ski-jumps on these ships (we already know from the article in the second post of this thread that the harrier pilots themselves would LOVE to see them), but it is the politics within the top brass of the navy that prevents the addition of ski-jumps because of a perceived threat to their precious super-carriers.

Another philosophical difference is that the British are open to ideas that to Americans seem goofy, but work, such as the 12-degree ramp at the bow of the ship that dramatically improves Harrier operations. Senior U.S. naval officers over the decades have vetoed the idea, saying they don’t like how it looks and that it takes up three helicopter landing spots. British and Marine officers say only one deck spot is lost to ten “ski jump.”
To a man, Marine pilots want the ramps installed on their ships to improve operational flexibility and safety.

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.