Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

franco-russe

Senior Member
Well, I actually did know that, but you wrote 11 carrier strike groups, not carriers. And the decision to cut one of the ten CSG's is a major reduction, even if it makes sense that the number of CSG's now matches that of CVW's.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
franco-russe said:
Well, I actually did know that, but you wrote 11 carrier strike groups, not carriers. And the decision to cut one of the ten CSG's is a major reduction, even the number of CSG's then match that of CVW's, which was and has been for a number of years 9.
Click to expand...
Sorry. my bad. 11 carrier groups is not accurate. It should have read 11 carriers. I will fix it.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
bd popeye said:
The USN is only required by law to keep 11 CVNs. CSG & airwings not included. The USN has 9 CVWs. Why? a carrier will always be in RCOH(refueling complex overhaul) and another will be in the shipyard for for minor re-fits.
Click to expand...
Back on topic. Here are some latest pictures of the construction of LHA-6, USS America. she's coming along nicely:

america-07a.jpg


america-09.jpg


america-10.jpg


america-11.jpg


america-12.jpg
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
bd popeye said:
Excellent photos Jeff! Where id you get those? At Northrup-Gruman website??
Click to expand...
They were on the USS America website, originally established for the CV, but with a seciton on the new America, LHA-6.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Orignally they had a petition to get one of the Ford class named America, but when they announced the LHA(R) as the America, they began following that.
 
tomcat21

tomcat21

New Member
kwaigonegin said:
Let's not play the partisan crap here tomcat. First of it's NOT Obama and the Democrats and it's SecDef Gates not Rumsfeld.
The calling of canceling the 35 Bravo was initiated by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform which consist of BOTH Democrats and Republicans and others.

Secondly 14 of the 18 commissioners from the panel must truly approve the recommendations so it is by far final. Lastly any recommendations made must still make it past Congress with a heavy influence by the Armed Services and Appropriations Committee. At this moment I don't think the Bravo version is canceled for reason I mentioned above.

all that being said I can't say it's a totally assinine idea. Sure the Bravo is very cool to look at and who doesn't love STOVL?! but you have to look it it realistically and holistically as well.

Because of the huge giant lift fan the Bravo version has doomed the line of even great potential. It has been proven that the STOVL requirement has directly lead to the decrease in of the Lighting's A2A capabilities. It is no secret that an internal weapons bay would be ideal if not for the giant lift fan on it's belly. Not to mentioned improved stealth capabilites and slim down the airframe and also lighten its empty weight. My theory is it could've use the F119-PW-100 powerplant similar to the Raptor F-22 thus allowing to actually supercruise!!!...
Because the Bravo has been primarily responsible for most of the technical, cost, and schedule problems, canceling it will most definitely accelerate delivery of the Air Force (F– 35A) and Navy (F-35C) variants.
From an operational standpoint it would also be more cost effective if the Marines flew the same aircraft as the Navy.
Yeah it's cool and look awesome BUT is it worth it? my opinion is NO. Should've just stuck to Alpha and Charlie! We and our allies would've couple of squadrons operational by now!
Click to expand...

My apologies, Gates. I really don't approve of his job on defense nor his comments about our navy's carrier force. Its the staple and iron hand of our fleet and the hallmark of american policy making that has fought more wars than his USAF.
 
tomcat21

tomcat21

New Member
Are they going to build others of this class? Its seems if the F-35 goes this class will only be one ship. Plus is it true that Queen Elizabeth will only be allowed to operate 12 fighters and none more under the new UK defense "review". I quote review due to the shortsightedness of the UK government its defense cuts that are crippling an important NATO ally's ability to have a true carrier strike capability and support other allied navies.
 
tomcat21

tomcat21

New Member
European Carrier operations.

I am curious. It has been stated that the French and British Navies are considering joint conventional carrier air wing operations, or shared ships. Is that going to happen? I wonder how the British fliers would feel if they had to take orders from the French or if they would feel their own independence to defend the UK and the fleet is gone?

And secondly, this sounds a little funny, but a marine friend of mine said he wouldn't mind a British Navy or RAF fliers that would love to come to the US Marines to keep flying the Harrier if they miss it! LOL!;)
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Re: European Carrier operations.

tomcat21 said:
I am curious. It has been stated that the French and British Navies are considering joint conventional carrier air wing operations, or shared ships. Is that going to happen? I wonder how the British fliers would feel if they had to take orders from the French or if they would feel their own independence to defend the UK and the fleet is gone?

And secondly, this sounds a little funny, but a marine friend of mine said he wouldn't mind a British Navy or RAF fliers that would love to come to the US Marines to keep flying the Harrier if they miss it! LOL!;)
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the idea is being proposed but not yet submitted for review or something like that. IMO that would complicate things more, b/c the two sides operate their CV differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top