Well… the USN is also buying into the “second-line carrier” concept.
Which is why LHA-6 USS America (formerly LHA(R) ) is designed with improved aviation facilities and no well dock at all.
A contract for long-lead-time elements and engineering work for the second ship of the class (LHA-07) was signed in June this year… it is also to be strongly aviation-centric.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2010/06/mil-100630-northrop-grumman04.htm
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/navy-awards-northrop-grumman-48-million-advance-procurement-contract-for-multi-purpose-amphibious-assault-ship-lha-7-2010-10-28?reflink=MW_news_stmpSo not only is the USMC planning to use F-35B from amphibs in numbers… the USN is building new amphibs specifically to support those kinds of operations!
Seems many in the USMC are not too happy about the move from LHD to LHA, i.e. losing the well deck. And it seems the drivers for this change are the increased size of the MV-22 and F-35B over their predecessors, the CH-46 and Harrier.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/September/Pages/MarinesQuestiontheUtilityof.aspx
Which underscores the point I am making. To meet the requirements of the service setting them F-35B is the only game in town. Any other solution involves telling the USMC to change their requirement.
Seems like someone needs to have a word with the Marines.
There is an alternative solution to the issue of how to deliver tacair in support of Marine forces that meets the USMC’s requirement for deployability from short-field/austere sites and thru-deck amphibious vessels?……
Well, you could change the requirement. For example, USMC doctrine could specify that an opposed landing will always be supported by a Carrier Strike Group, which eliminates the requirement for a handful of Marine aircraft aboard LHDs. And since CAS is basically flying artillery, once they’re ashore, they would be required to stay within their own artillery cover – which is much more precise and can cover longer ranges than in the WWII days of island-hopping in the Pacific – and/or naval gunfire support. Which means they don’t have to be so worried about austere site operations.
Read a post from a US infantryman just back from Afghanistan, where he said that 75% of their CAS came from these:

There’s just too much risk and cost associated with something like the F-35B, and in any case, the USMC won’t be re-fighting Guadalcanal ever again.
This story was posted on another thread:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/11/navy-jsf-engine-too-big-112910w/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Is it another indication that the US Navy are less than enthusiastic about the F-35C? Is this a matter of concern for the UK?
Astute’s captain has been relieved of his command:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11853493
….. So, yeah. The nation is (Tomahawk aside) pretty much in the 1981 conditions.
Learn from history, they say…
You forgetting the forces in situ on the Falklands? Big difference between now and ’81.
Clips from the 2005 film ‘Les Chevaliers du Ciel’, the French ‘Top Gun’. (I think one of the stunt pilots was on exchange from the RAF.)
Here’s another video using clips from the film (best viewed in full screen):
http://player.vimeo.com/video/838174” width=”400″ height=”267″ frameborder=”0
Mod Edit: No embedded video, thanks! This one tried to run a script but was blocked by NoScript in Firefox.
Maybe as a stop-gap measure the RN/RAF should get a few more King Air 350ERs, suitably equipped? (The Navy are getting four of them for naval oberver training, and the RAF also use them for training and ISTAR work.)

Hawker Beechcraft do market an MPA version of the 350ER, which costs a small fraction of most other maritime patrol aircraft.
Can’t imagine the crews being delighted to fly over the sea for hours with only two engines……
Tell that to the US Navy

And most airliners crossing the Atlantic these days only have two engines. Four engines are soooooo 20th century :diablo:
Well they do have Rolls-Royce engines….
Interesting article in the current issue of Sea Breezes on the future of the Navy. Here’s part of it:
There seems to be a shift towards ‘out of area’ activities. Sweden recently sent HMS Carlskrona to join the EU’s Op Atalanta’s fleet off the Somali coast. It started life as a minelayer but has been converted into a command and patrol vessel.

Finland is following a similar path: the minelayer Pohjanmaa will be joining the EU force in the New Year.
![]()
My nation (imaginary) is a land locked country, average sized but economically prosperous. My nations people are quite happy, but a small minority is pressing for several regions to become independent. I am not a NATO member but I have an agreement with my more powerful eastern neighbour to provide air defence so I am fortunate in that sense. My Air Force consists of:
6 x UH-1H Huey’s ex-US Army
3 x AH-1F Cobra’s ex-US Army
3 x MD-500 Defender ex-RoKAF
12 x Super Tucano new
4 x A-4 Skyhawk ex-US Navy
(6 x Su-25SM new on order to replace current fixed wing aircraft)
2 x C-160 Transall ex-French Air Force
Now that’s more like it, a bit more realistic. But there’s always room for improvement:
1. I suspect French Air Force C-160s are pretty knackered at this stage, so perhaps a couple of CASA CN-235s instead, or if money is really tight, C-212s or even Harbin Y-12s for light transport?
2. Mi-8s rather than Hueys? Cheaper? Certainly bigger.
3. Do you need jets at all? A lot of complexity – training, maintenance, logistics. Would the Super Tucanos and Cobras not be able to provide the gunship/CAS capability on their own?
Sure, I can immediately think of A-1 Skyraiders escorting HH-3 ‘Jolly Green Giant’ CSAR helicopters deep into North Vietnam in the 1960s.
Yes, but that was an Air Force op, whereas helicopter gunships are usually operated by the Army. In the US the Army are restricted to helicopters – with a few minor exceptions; is that one of the reasons why we have attack helicopters rather than fixed-wing armed escorts for transport and utility helicopters? Seems the fixed-wing alternative – if it could do the job – would be a lot cheaper to buy and operate, and a lot easier to fly and maintain.