Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: LHA-R Ships

  1. #1
    Contributor Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 06
    Posts
    651

    LHA-R Ships

    The USA’s New LHA-R Ships: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault (updated)

    Having read the above and studied the design requirements, I still wonder why the US Navy hasnt come up with a way of providing a ramp for the F-35b/ Harrier.

    I know they dont want to lose a Helicopter spot, but surely there is a way in this day and age to create some sort of hydrolic mechanism to creat a curved ramp at a moments notice, especially with the advances in materials used on these sort of ships.

    Just wondering why they wouldnt tried to make this happen in order to give their Expeditionary Strike Group a bit more bite?
    Naval Warfare Discussion is dying on WAB

  2. #2
    Contributor VarSity's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jun 07
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    666
    I have never really understood the problem with losing one helo spot for a ramp.

    If your that bothered extend the deck a touch or nail a 12 foot square of deck to the back of the ship to give you another spot.

    From reading Marine pilots who worked from the Brit Carriers, they loved the ramps and there are clear advantaged to having it.

  3. #3
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Stan, From what I understand they have been testing the F-22 Raptor for landings onboard the carriers. It would not surprise me to think the very same for the F-35B if it hasnt happened already. I will try to find where I read this from.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  4. #4
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Hey Stan,
    I'm still looking for that info but the brocure for Lockheed states they very much plan for the CV (Carrier varient) Although I have heard various rumors they were already testing at this stage.

    A brief look at the brochure.

    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/a...n-Brochure.pdf
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    Stan, From what I understand they have been testing the F-22 Raptor for landings onboard the carriers.
    Raptor doesn't have the gear to land on a carrier.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  6. #6
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral View Post
    Raptor doesn't have the gear to land on a carrier.
    General, Dont you mean it dont have "standard" gear for carrier landing? There have been several rumors floating about about a few carrier landings. If this is too be the future then it would pay to test without media coverage.Although as mentioned this is rumor.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 07 Jul 08, at 17:35.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  7. #7
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    General, Dont you mean it dont have "standard" gear for carrier landing? There have been several rumors floating about about a few carrier landings. If this is too be the future then it would pay to test without media coverage.Although as mentioned this is rumor.
    I'm no expert, but I don't think you could land a Raptor on a carrier without at least a tailhook. And without beefing the undercarriage up at least some, it's liable to permanently damage the aircraft. I don't really understand why they would try it, anyway -there are no plans to navalise the Raptor, it'd be way too problematic: the undercarriage has to be replaced, tailhook put in, the entire airframe has to be strengthened, anything not resistant to salt has to be modified or replaced, probably would need folding wings. I believe the approach speed is very high, as well. Unlike the JSF, the Raptor was not designed with carrier operations in mind.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  8. #8
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral View Post
    I'm no expert, but I don't think you could land a Raptor on a carrier without at least a tailhook. And without beefing the undercarriage up at least some, it's liable to permanently damage the aircraft. I don't really understand why they would try it, anyway -there are no plans to navalise the Raptor, it'd be way too problematic: the undercarriage has to be replaced, tailhook put in, the entire airframe has to be strengthened, anything not resistant to salt has to be modified or replaced, probably would need folding wings. I believe the approach speed is very high, as well. Unlike the JSF, the Raptor was not designed with carrier operations in mind.
    General, I whole heartedly agree with you. However since she is a fifth generation fighter it would pay to modify the airframe,gear and hook on several of them in the case they are needed for such missions in the case either they cannot utilize certain airspace nor utilize certain bases pending the operation at hand. In the brocure for Lockheed apparently they have been considering the idea as we know the F35 will be capable.

    General, I would submit to you that several aircraft since WWII that were not supposed/planned for to be carrier born somehow found their way aboard for specialized missions more then once. However in your defence, none of our Stealth aircraft would fit such criteria.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  9. #9
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought View Post
    General, I would submit to you that several aircraft since WWII that were not supposed/planned for to be carrier born somehow found their way aboard for specialized missions more then once. However in your defence, none of our Stealth aircraft would fit such criteria.
    Interesting. I hadn't heard of that.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  10. #10
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    [
    Having read the above and studied the design requirements, I still wonder why the US Navy hasnt come up with a way of providing a ramp for the F-35b/ Harrier.

    I know they dont want to lose a Helicopter spot, but surely there is a way in this day and age to create some sort of hydrolic mechanism to creat a curved ramp at a moments notice, especially with the advances in materials used on these sort of ships.

    Just wondering why they wouldnt tried to make this happen in order to give their Expeditionary Strike Group a bit more bite?
    Its not needed. If the Brits and Spaniards would build bigger ships they wouldn't need them either.

    What kind of extra bite would it give the LHDs?

    Quote Originally Posted by VarSity
    From reading Marine pilots who worked from the Brit Carriers, they loved the ramps and there are clear advantaged to having it.
    Of course they liked it. When you have almost 200ft less deck space, I'm sure a ramp comes in handy

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred
    Stan, From what I understand they have been testing the F-22 Raptor for landings onboard the carriers. It would not surprise me to think the very same for the F-35B if it hasnt happened already. I will try to find where I read this from.
    Raptors have not been landing on Navy Ships. There was once a thought of a Navy version of the F-22. but it was way too expensive. The idea dropped.

    The JSF is all there is for the Navy.

  11. #11
    Contributor Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 06
    Posts
    651
    Interestingly that also prefered the British Carriers due to its stability at sea compared the to the amphib ships. which was interesting.

    I know that with an extra 200ft of space they get up to a better pace but doesnt the ramp give them the ability to take off with a more useful load?

    And if that wasnt the case then why on earth would the UK be putting a ramp at the end of the new CVF's ?
    Naval Warfare Discussion is dying on WAB

  12. #12
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Interestingly that also prefered the British Carriers due to its stability at sea compared the to the amphib ships. which was interesting.
    Not really. Ark Royal has a wider beam. And the Wasp class only has a deeper draft when ballast down. Not something that the Navy does very often, cost more money to run.

    Remember, Ark Royal was designed as an VTOL aircraft carrier. Wasp were designed as Amphibious assault ships first. VTOL ops are 3-4th on the priority list.

    I know that with an extra 200ft of space they get up to a better pace but doesnt the ramp give them the ability to take off with a more useful load?
    True during the days of the harrier 1s. And more relevant for the British, than the US. If Harriers are flying "real world" a carrier is close by to perform AtA refuel. Take off with less fuel, more boom and hit a tanker.

    A MEU has a KC-130 assigned for Marine Corps specif ops. Or they can hit a AF or Navy tanker.

    Harrier 2s have no problem launching with 2 - 2000lb bombs and a pair of AtA missiles as is. That "Extra pace" provides the extra lift.

    Losing 1 or 2 helo spots that apply to the primary mission isn't worth a marginal increase in the secondary mission.

    And if that wasnt the case then why on earth would the UK be putting a ramp at the end of the new CVF's ?
    "Its a Brit thing"?

    Why would they be limiting themselves to STOVL aircraft? If they had used the design like the French did they could buy Navy F-35s and had a real aircraft carrier again.

    There are a lot of times I ask "Why on earth is the British MoD doing that"?

  13. #13
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Interestingly that also prefered the British Carriers due to its stability at sea compared the to the amphib ships. which was interesting.
    Or it could have been the ability to drink booze Coming from a dry Navy

  14. #14
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    15 Sep 06
    Posts
    6,755
    [QUOTE=Gun Grape;530678]
    There are a lot of times I ask "Why on earth is the British MoD doing that"?


    Not half as often as the MoD does!
    Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

  15. #15
    Contributor Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 06
    Posts
    651
    as i have said thousands of times I would love them to be true carriers and use the f-35c - and have the compliment of planes exclusively for naval aviation but our future carriers are likely to see planes once in a blue moon.
    Naval Warfare Discussion is dying on WAB

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. World Navies in Review
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 15 Jun 07,, 04:51
  2. UK Drawdown?
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03 May 07,, 16:22
  3. Battleship History Article
    By rickusn in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17 Jan 07,, 16:16
  4. World Navies Edited and Updated
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26 Mar 05,, 03:02
  5. Greatly Revised Rankings
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20 Mar 05,, 11:51

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •