Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Franklin

Captain
This is what i have been thinking for some time. And that is that the USN has 19 carriers rather than 10 carriers. If countries like the UK, Italy, Thailand and Spain is said to have aircraft carriers then the 9 Wasp class ships should be considered carriers as well.

Does the US Navy have 10 or 19 Aircraft Carriers?

The U.S. Navy operates 19 ships that could be called aircraft carriers, but only considers 10 to be actual carriers.
Last week the U.S. Navy accepted USS America, first of the America-class amphibious assault ships, into service. Unlike most recent amphibious assault ships, USS America and her sister USS Tripoli lack well-decks, instead focusing on aviation facilities. When fully operational, America and Tripoli will operate as many as 20 F-35Bs, potentially playing a critical role in what the Navy projects as the future of air superiority.

Inevitably, the delivery of USS America rekindles the ongoing conversation over what, precisely, constitutes an aircraft carrier. In the United States, we endure the polite fiction that the USN’s 45,000 ton aircraft carriers are not aircraft carriers, but rather some other kind of creature. USS America is roughly the same size as the French Charles De Gaulle and the INS Vikramaditya, although a bit smaller than the RFS Admiral Kuzetsov or her Chinese sister, the Liaoning. America is considerably larger than recent aircraft-carrying ships constructed for the Korean, Japanese, and Australian navies.

As an educator, I can attest to some frustration in relating to students that the United States operates ten aircraft carriers, plus another nine ships that we would refer to as aircraft carriers if they served in any other navy. And while I appreciate the desire of analysts to differently categorize the capabilities of Wasp and Nimitz-class carriers, I wish that people had a firmer grasp on the abject silliness of claiming that a 45,000 ton flat-decked aircraft-carrying warship is not, in fact, an aircraft carrier. Think of the children.

The distinction between aircraft carrier and amphibious assault ship began when the typology of USN flattops was considerably more complex than today. The Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ships entered service in 1961, sharing the sea with Forrestal-class supercarriers, Midway class semi-supercarriers, and a variety of configurations of Essex-class carriers. Unfortunately, the name stuck even as amphibs gained the capacity for launching VSTOL fighters, and as the number of carrier variants dwindled.

But today, no one benefits from an accurate characterization of the Navy’s amphibious flat-top fleet. The USN prefers to fight its budgetary battles on the basis of the 11 carrier fleet, not the much more impressive sounding 19 carrier fleet. Naval aviation advocates are surely correct when they point out that the America and Wasp-class carriers fall far short of their Nimitz-class counterparts, even if they sometimes grudgingly grant that the smaller ships can carry out many of the same roles as their nuclear cousins.

And so what’s the problem? Who cares if the United States effectively disguises nearly half of its carrier fleet? The deception may not hold forever. At some point, skeptical legislators may choose to acknowledge the existence of the USN’s other nine carriers, and consequently the overwhelming superiority of USN aviation over any potential foe. It would be better to get ahead of this game, and develop a more appropriate way of talking about the USN’s light carrier fleet. The best choice might be to skip “light carrier” or “sea control ship” and go straight to “assault carrier,” a term that is sometimes used in British naval circles to describe HMS Ocean and her predecessors. Such a designation would make for a considerably more intelligible naval vocabulary.
Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
LHA/LHD ships are not true aircraft carriers. They are amphibious assault ships. Built to support US Marines ashore over a short distance. Those ships are fine vessels but they cannot do what a CVN does.

They cannot operate at 30+ knots continually. In full operations an LHA/LHD top speed is about 22 knots and needs to be refueled every 3-5 days.

They cannot conduct air strikes around the clock for up to a week without re-plenishment.

They have no tankers, No AEW aircraft and only six-eight strike aircraft. Although the ships could be fitted as an "Harrier" carrier with 20 Harriers. Trust me an Harrier is very limited in it's combat role as compared to any Hornet.

Their job is to put Marines ashore and support said Marines.

And in a real military crisis the US president never ask where are the Amphibious assault ships? Nope.. He ask where are the carriers?!
 
F

Franklin

Captain
I know that the Wasp is far less capable then the Nimitz class however these are still ships that can launch and recover aircrafts. And engage in sea control ops. And it can carry up to 20 Sea Harriers! Thats more than the carriers of Spain, Italy and Thailand. Or the old Kiev class ships that are called aircraft carriers. Its bigger than any of the VSTOL carriers out there today. That's an aircraft carrier for me.
 
Last edited:
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Franklin said:
I know that the Wasp is far less capable then the Nimitz class however these are still ships that can launch and recover aircrafts. And engage in sea control ops. And it can carry up to 20 Sea Harriers! Thats more than the carriers of Spain, Italy and Thailand. Or the old Kiev class ships that are called aircraft carriers. Its bigger than any of the VSTOL carriers out there today. That's an aircraft carrier for me.
Click to expand...

We all are entitled to our opinion.

For your enjoyment.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


North Arabian Gulf (Apr. 20, 2003) The amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) moves into position as the amphibious assault ships of Commander, Task Force Fifty One (CTF-51) come together in an unprecedented formation during operations in the North Arabian Gulf. This marked the first time that six large deck amphibious ships from the East and West coasts have deployed together in one area of operation. Led by the flag ship USS Tarawa (LHA 1), the ships in the second row from bottom to top are USS Saipan (LHA 2) and USS Kearsarge (LHD 3); and the third row of ships are USS Boxer (LHD 4), USS Bataan (LHD 5) and USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6). CTF-51 led Navy amphibious forces in the Arabian Gulf region during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 32 ships of CTF-51 composed the largest amphibious force assembled since the Inchon landing, during the Korean War. Operation Iraqi Freedom is the multinational coalition effort to liberate the Iraqi people, eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and end the regime of Saddam Hussein. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Photographer's Mate Tom Daily. (RELEASED)/QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
P

PanAsian

Major
bd popeye said:
LHA/LHD ships are not true aircraft carriers. They are amphibious assault ships. Built to support US Marines ashore over a short distance. Those ships are fine vessels but they cannot do what a CVN does.

They cannot operate at 30+ knots continually. In full operations an LHA/LHD top speed is about 22 knots and needs to be refueled every 3-5 days.

They cannot conduct air strikes around the clock for up to a week without re-plenishment.

They have no tankers, No AEW aircraft and only six-eight strike aircraft. Although the ships could be fitted as an "Harrier" carrier with 20 Harriers. Trust me an Harrier is very limited in it's combat role as compared to any Hornet.

Their job is to put Marines ashore and support said Marines.

And in a real military crisis the US president never ask where are the Amphibious assault ships? Nope.. He ask where are the carriers?!
Click to expand...

Those are relevant details for standalone high tempo ops but even though LHDs/LHAs with aircraft are much less than what a CV is capable of they are already much more than what many militaries' air forces can muster, never mind their navies. It is especially true with the advent of VTOL aircraft like the V-22 and F-35, and I don't see a V/STOL UCAV with decent payload and range taking off from LHDs/LHAs being too far off.

I am only talking about actual capabilities. Terminology will be what it is, word games exist for a reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top