Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Tasman
Junior Member
Is there a constitutional reason why this ship is being classified as a destroyer? As far as I can see it is a small sea control helicopter carrier. Apart from its helos its weapons mix comprises ASW systems (Asroc and TT) and self defence systems (Sea Sparrow and CIWS). This doesn't seem to fit the role of a modern destroyer.
Cheers
We've talked about that earlier. This vessel definitely has sea-controll capabilities. And I believe the poltical need to be only defensive in all aspects plays a key role here.
Maybe they want it to be seen as an ASW DD because of the number of helos it can carry. I think four are proposed.
Probably a step to aquire sea-controll-capability without the need to deploy a super-carrier. I think there's definitely room for ships that offer a combination of sea-controll and amphib-assault capabilities.
two Harriers taking of from USS Essex:
Last edited:
Moderators note >>. For those of you newer members>>> please browse through our first outstanding carrier thread.
Excellent discussion and pictures in there!
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2255
When the LHA(R) program does come to fruition the LHA(R) when operating with the highly capable LPD-17 class will be a very potent amphib force.
I agree with the previous posters in that the new LHA(R) is more avation capable. Perhaps in the future we will see an all F-35 & V-22 air wing on an LHA(R). perhaps 10+ years from now.
I am some what puzzled by the lack of a well deck. Without a well deck you have a aircraft carrier that can haul vehicles and troops. I envision these ships carrying up to 36 JSF and 6+ V-22. As I mentioned this class will be grouped with an LPD-17 class.
Anyone agree or disagree?
Excellent discussion and pictures in there! http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2255
When the LHA(R) program does come to fruition the LHA(R) when operating with the highly capable LPD-17 class will be a very potent amphib force.
I agree with the previous posters in that the new LHA(R) is more avation capable. Perhaps in the future we will see an all F-35 & V-22 air wing on an LHA(R). perhaps 10+ years from now.
I am some what puzzled
by the lack of a well deck. Without a well deck you have a aircraft carrier that can haul vehicles and troops. I envision these ships carrying up to 36 JSF and 6+ V-22. As I mentioned this class will be grouped with an LPD-17 class.Anyone agree or disagree?
This is a terrfic picture!
Ships from four nations sail in formation during the NATO Southern Region exercise Dragon Hammer '90. In the left foreground is the amphibious assault ship USS SAIPAN (LHA-2). In the background are, from left: the Spanish aircraft carrier SPS PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS (R-11), the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69), the Italian light aircraft carrier ITS GIUSEPPE GARIBALDI (C-551) and the British light aircraft carrier HMS INVINCIBLE (R-05). (Released to Public)
Ships from four nations sail in formation during the NATO Southern Region exercise Dragon Hammer '90. In the left foreground is the amphibious assault ship USS SAIPAN (LHA-2). In the background are, from left: the Spanish aircraft carrier SPS PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS (R-11), the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN-69), the Italian light aircraft carrier ITS GIUSEPPE GARIBALDI (C-551) and the British light aircraft carrier HMS INVINCIBLE (R-05). (Released to Public)
Attachments
-
DN-ST-90-08933.jpg
I do not know for sure that the "Aviation Variant" A/V mentioned in the Global Security document has been finalized yet , but I believe it is close if it hasn't already been done.
I am some what puzzled
Anyone agree or disagree?
But, since they are calling it a "variant", then that implies that there will also be some of the LHA(R) that do have well decks. Perhaps only two or three will be the Aviation Variants.
Just the same, for those vessels that have no no well deck, then those particular LHA(R)s will not be able to land any heavy armor (tanks) and will have to depend on the Wasp class or the San Antonio class for that function. Perhaps that is the intent, in which case, with more aircraft capability, particularly JSF, these LHA(R)s will have more strike capability for the US Marines in terms of air support during and after the landing when no airfield or CVN is available.
We'll have to see. Right now if you go to the
...it does not mention the aviation variant and indicates that the specifications for the ships are still yet to be determined.
Tasman
Junior Member
Thanks for posting the link Jeff. One of the great things about this forum is the sharing of links to excellent sites.
I also wonder how strong the commitment is to the aviation variant as the information is vague (perhaps deliberately so at this stage). In an amphibious force as large as that of the USN, I can understand a desire to have a proportion of ships that sacrifice heavy lift (tanks, etc) for a more substantial aviation capability. In a way they are like super LPHs (like the old Iwo Jima class or the RN's Ocean). This variant should also prove to be extremely valuable in the alternative sea control carrier role.
Cheers
Last edited:
Agreed. In essence, with the Aviation Variant, the US Marines will have a two or three of their own close to 50,000 ton aircraft carriers optimized for air support and air assault. I think three is a good number because it ensures that one or two can always be deployed.
With eight Wasp class, if you add to that three normal well-deck LHA(R) and three Aviation Variant LHA(R), then that will be a very potent amphibious assault capability, including significant air support, particularly when coupled with 12 San Antonio class LPDs.
- Status