STOVL was a mistake

>>31354030
>being operated from amphibious carriers, where they are not even really needed.
Please explain this statement

>>31354054
Not OP but american carriers seem to work just fine with conventional take off and landing.

>>31354054

Any real amphibious operation will involve support from an actual CATOBAR aircraft carrier. What's the point of keeping a dozen STOVL fighters on the amphib?

>>31354030
They worked fine in the falklands.

>>31354030
>However, in practice this idea has never been successfully implemented.
Where would it have been implemented? The cold war stayed cold and Harriers performed admirably enough in the Falklands.

>>31354211
>>31354224

Did they accomplish anything in the Falklands which could not have been done better with conventional fighter aircraft?

>>31354030

My understanding is that VTOL has a heavy burden attached to it on the design of the fighter, using the harrier as an example.

There's nothing wrong with having VTOL craft, the problem comes in when you try to make one that does everything and has that too.

With the technology we've got now there's nothing thats going to do everything. You have to prioritize. Thrust Vectoring is a nice technique that can help with faster takeoff and other tricks but its just something that all our fighters should have at this point.

Trying to take it a step further and make it VTOL is stupid.

If you want vertical takeoff then you make fighters specifically for that, like a new Harrier. Its not going to hit mach 3 and its probably not going to be stealth.

Its like inventory slots in a video game. Some shit is just too big to fit in the inventory for you to be able to do everything you want. But if you need to do X thing then you are *Forced* to lose something else.

Until we get real Flying Saucers and use them mainstream its not gonna change.

F-35 is possibly a failure due to this alone. Not that its VTOL screws it up, but that it damages the streamlining of the craft.

>>31354253

Existed.

>>31354263
Your entire post is fucking retarded. Go back to /b/.

>>31354288

So the Brits couldn't have sent a CATOBAR carrier and gotten the same results? Or better results?

>>31354288
/Thread

STOVL is only a mistake because we should be doing CATOVL

>>31354310
>So the Brits couldn't have sent a CATOBAR carrier and gotten the same results?
No, because they had no CATOBAR carriers to send.

>>31354310
No, they couldn't have.

>>31354253
Launched off of carriers that couldn't handle conventional aircraft, scored 20 odd AA kills

>>31354310
The brits didn't HAVE one. Ark Royal was scrapped three years earlier.

>>31354310

Hmm yes let us have equipment that doesn't suit doctrine

>>31354253
No conventional British Fighter could have made it to the Falklands

>>31354323

>No, because they had no CATOBAR carriers to send.

And that was their mistake. Fortunately for them, they were able to win despite the handicap, but a CATOBAR carrier still would have been more effective. Or hell, even a STOBAR carrier.

File: 1384112099110.jpg (6KB, 150x100px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 150x100px

>>31354263
>it damages the streamlining of the craft.
Except it doesn't?

>>31354369
eh that shit was irrelevant compared to the fact their equipment often didn't work, and couldn't see low flying aircraft.

All STOVL implies is reduced range & payload in comparison to an equivalent CATOBAR aircraft.

>>31354369
>And that was their mistake. Fortunately for them, they were able to win despite the handicap, but a CATOBAR carrier still would have been more effective. Or hell, even a STOBAR carrier.

You people are the worst. You think you understand this stuff because you have a superficial understanding of equipment, but have no idea about what doctrine is and why it exists.

>>31354182
He's talking about amphibious assault ships for landing amphibious units

>>31354369
But neither of those ships existed, so...

File: poster 37-touko.jpg (1MB, 2515x3276px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2515x3276px

>So what then, is the justification for continued purchases of these aircraft?

F-35 pretty much is an straight up upgrade for F-16/18/Gripens/eurofighter etc. They dont need pods for one and have actually beaten old gen fighters in (simulated) combat.

Well if you aint gonna buy F-35 then what? Go buy russian stuff? Build your own?
None of these options are viable for most if not all first world countries and aging equipment has to be upgraded

>>31354253
Inflight refueling gave them longer ranges than anything the Argies had and they could land on the islands before either airport had been retaken.

>>31354391

>All STOVL implies is reduced range & payload in comparison to an equivalent CATOBAR aircraft.

But at the same time, a STOVL aircraft will generally cost just as much or more than a CATOBAR plane. So you're paying the same (or more) for a less capable platform.

>>31354410

The F-35 is a good platform, but it would be even better if it wasn't held back by STOVL.

File: 1454461013751.jpg (2MB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x5000px

>>31354420
>a STOVL aircraft will generally cost just as much or more than a CATOBAR plane. So you're paying the same (or more) for a less capable platform.

You realise there's more to understand the cost of something then the unit price, right?

>i read an article online and now know more than the JCS and every defense analyst in the last 40 years
THE THREAD

>>31354457

Very few countries use STOVL aircraft so you cannot use bandwagon.

>>31354438
>The F-35 is a good platform, but it would be even better if it wasn't held back by STOVL.
Feel free to point out a single way in which the existence of the F-35B "held back" the F-35A and F-35C.

I find the assertion curious, considering it is kinematically equal or superior while combat loaded to every platform it replaces.

>>31354438
>continue propagating the "held back by STOVL" meme.

Why do people still believe this.

Also the marines used Harriers to great effect in the Middle East conflicts, especially because they could be based in FOBs that weren't suitable for conventional aircraft, giving faster CAS response times.

ITT: the not Bong shitposter tries a new angle

>>31354490
At least it's a refreshing change to see him go for the planes rather than the ships.

>>31354477
Very few countries have fixed wing naval aviation too.

>>31354485

>Feel free to point out a single way in which the existence of the F-35B "held back" the F-35A and F-35C.

Well, it greatly increased the development time for the system, for one thing.

But we're finally reaching the end of that long road now, so let's move on to something else. Something more important: every dollar spent on the F-35B is a dollar that is nothing being spent of the F-35C.

>>31354438
You keep saying it's "held back" by stovl as if it's true. It's not. The only real difference is that the -B version has less room for internal fuel stores.>>31354445

>>31354457
The ones that matter do.

>>31354477
The ones that matter do.

>>31354541
>every dollar spent on the F-35B is a dollar that is nothing being spent of the F-35C.

You do realize we'll be building substantially more Bs than Cs, and the Marines/Brits have a greater need for the B to come out before the C, right? C is the lowest priority variant because the Navy is only going to procure about 200 to supplement their existing Super Hornet fleet.

File: 1450005628777.png (650KB, 635x572px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 635x572px

>>31354541
>Well, it greatly increased the development time for the system, for one thing.
Do you have any proof of this?

>very dollar spent on the F-35B is a dollar that is nothing being spent of the F-35C.
Are you retarded? Are you saying that the computation and programming in F-35B/C is completely different?

>>31354542

Dude, the STOVL requirement vastly complicated the entire F-35 program. This is a fact that not even the air force denies anymore. We'd probably have the F-35 in service 5 years ago if not for that.

>>31354541

god i want to strangle you

THE F-35 PROGRAM STARTED AS A JOINT USMC/RN STOVL REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>31354030
>underrated thesis for an academy student on the path to become an aviation officer
Your cogent post was spot on, op, and, as corollary, points to the supremacy of drones in the niche which STOVL/VTOL jets were designed to fill, with the drones' capacity to either loiter indefinitely (literally for weeks on end -- just keep sending tankers up to refuel them) or be launched from improvised forward airfields (inb4 swedish air force).

The reason we keep purchasing them is because of our collective wet dream to keep an attack jet in our garage which we can taxi out onto the street, rev the engines and just jump up into the sky like a motherfucking bumblebee of death.

>>31354541
>Well, it greatly increased the development time for the system, for one thing.
So you can't point out a single way in which the A or C airframes were made inferior by the existence of the F-35B. Check.

Tell me, what kind of wheels are you using on that goalpost? They're very smooth and don't even squeak.

>>31354585
STOVL was going to be part of the F-35 from the very beginning of the program. Plus, the majority of the documented delays to the project are software based. There hasn't been anything to suggest there's a critical deficiency in the hardware or physical design of the plane.

>>31354577
>C is the lowest priority variant because the Navy is only going to procure about 200 to supplement their existing Super Hornet fleet.
Aren't they supposed to procure enough to replace the regular hornets and then continue low rate procurement to eventually replace the supers when they start getting older?

>>31354585
>This is a fact that not even the air force denies anymore
I would love to see this source. But I'll be fucked sideways with a dump truck if I can find it.

I'm beginning to think it might not exist. Why would you lie to us, anon?

>>31354030
>So what then, is the justification for continued purchases of these aircraft?
Institutional inertia. Same for combat helicopters.

>>31354609
t. 10th grader trying sound like he has relevant experience or education

Also,
>with the drones' capacity to either loiter indefinitely (literally for weeks on end -- just keep sending tankers up to refuel them)
tip top fucking kek

>>31354584

>Do you have any proof of this?

This is the video from when the F-35 was first sent to the Netherlands. Before the planes arrive, they have a speaker come up and talk about the history of the F-35 program. At one point he implies that the STOVL requirement complicated things and contributed to the delays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wACWvCTkb-g

>>31354638
>Same for combat helicopters
Time to bail. Thread is officially shit enough to have drawn in fucking gliderfag.

>>31354487
>especially because they could be based in FOBs that weren't suitable for conventional aircraft,

Do you have any examples of that? sources? or give personal experience on this? Not trying to be an ass about it but I honestly want to know if its ever been utilized like that, maybe filling a gap created by high altitude effects on Hilos or something.

>>31354338
>The brits didn't HAVE one
yeah they ditched CATOBAR carriers replacing them with STOVL

>>31354609
Okay, there are no drones with attack capability that can loiter for weeks on end.

>>31354625
Might be their plans further down the line. However, the current plans are to only buy enough to replace the legacy hornets. They may be planning to eventually replace the super hornets with the rumored FA-XX project.

And unlike the Marines or RN, the USN's entire air wing is not wholly dependent on Harriers and legacy Hornets.

>>31354541
>Well, it greatly increased the development time for the system, for one thing.

Except it didn't.

Development time has been comperable to the Eurofighter and Rafale, and most of the development in the last few years has been electronics/software related.

>>31354663
>At one point he implies that the STOVL requirement complicated things and contributed to the delays.
>hoping people don't actually watch the source

That's a 2 hour and 34 minute video, anon. If one of the speakers really said that, you'd be able to at least point to which speaker.

Find a minute marker for the comment or go fuck yourself. This is a bullshit source.

>>31354674
>yeah they ditched CATOBAR carriers replacing them with STOVL

Because doctrine changed.

>>31354541

UK and Italy both put money into the program for the B variant because of their needs. It is not just American money.

There is potential for future export to allies that can't splurge on a CATOBAR carrier, for example if Japan added a ramp to its large helicopter carrier they could use it.

It keeps options open for America to operate fixed wing aircraft from more, and cheaper platforms.

STOVL capability increases options for basing on land, where airstrips are attacked by the enemy, or are temporary. This makes it much harder for an enemy to deny America airbases.

>>31354664
>gliders
i am not accustomed with this meme.

>>31354698
And they didn't have the ships or the money.

>>31354670
They were certainly being flown off of the amphib carriers, but they were also operating out of relatively small airbases like Ali Al Salem Air Base during the first Gulf War and were flying directly out of Kandahar in Afghanistan.

>>31354729

Won't agree or disagree because I don't know. All I know is that doctrine changed and carriers changed their role to provide local air support and cover for ASW operations in the north sea.

>>31354728
Basically just a shitposter who goes around claiming gliders are more effective than helicopters.

>>31354772
But gliders are stupid.

>>31354791
And thats what we keep telling him. Trust me

>>31354638
Hello Gliderfag, long time no see. Did the nice nurses at the asylum re-instate your computer privilege?

File: 1472336643467[1].png (316KB, 587x556px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 587x556px

>>31354611

>So you can't point out a single way in which the A or C airframes were made inferior by the existence of the F-35B

That is 100% correct. However, I never claimed that the A or C were physically compromised. I said that they were held back, which is true. Both aircraft would have probably been introduced at least 5 years earlier if STOVL hadn't been part of the program.

>>31354677
>>31354688

The guy running the program agrees with me on this:

>“I’m not saying they’re bad. I’m not saying they’re good. I’m just saying they’re hard,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Thursday. “You ought to think really hard about what you really need out of the sixth-generation fighter and how much overlap is there between what the Navy and the Air Force really need.”

>“We will have some different requirements for what we need based on the different things we are expected to provide for the joint force,” Lt. Gen. James “Mike” Holmes, Air Force deputy chief of staff for plans and requirements, told reporters last month. “We will use common technologies and maybe some common things, but at this point we think it will be a different enough mission that it won’t be the same airplane.”

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/03/f-35-chief-think-very-very-hard-making-another-joint-fighter/126587/

There is no reason why the STOVL program had to be married to the other two. However, we're getting off topic now. I'm not arguing that there should have been a separate STOVL program. I'm arguing there shouldn't have been a STOVL program AT ALL.

File: 1631283_-_main[1].jpg (113KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 752x423px

>>31354724

>for example if Japan added a ramp to its large helicopter carrier they could use it.

Unlikely. The Izumo fills a specific need for the Japanese that the F-35B cannot fill.

Japan is smart enough to understand that helicopter carriers (or helicopter destroyers as they call them) should be used to carry helicopters, not fighter jets.

>>31354756
>and were flying directly out of Kandahar in Afghanistan.

I'm going to assume you mean early in the war before KAF became crazy huge which makes sense. You have a forward airfield or airhead and need something with longer range than an attack helicopter but don't have the established runway required for most modern aircraft.

Now that I think about it, I was on an exercise in the middle of nowhere on Egglin AFB and there were aircraft doing impossibly short and impossibly slow touch and go's on one of the seemingly abandoned runways in the middle of the night.

>>31354832

Very disingenuous of you to suggest that *only* the F-35B has caused delays.

>Both aircraft would have probably been introduced at least 5 years earlier if STOVL hadn't been part of the program.

Provide a citation on that.

>There is no reason why the STOVL program had to be married to the other two. However, we're getting off topic now. I'm not arguing that there should have been a separate STOVL program. I'm arguing there shouldn't have been a STOVL program AT ALL.

No where does that name STOVL as a key delay.

>>31354832
>I said that they were held back, which is true.

Except it isn't, most of the delays have been software related.

>>31354768
The tl:dr is that It all got political. The invincibles were budgeted as 'through deck command cruisers', not as carriers, because that was the only way to get anything at all after cva-01 was canned.

>>31354872
Japan's helicopter destroyers are ASW assets, not amphibious assault.

>>31354832
>Both aircraft would have probably been introduced at least 5 years earlier if STOVL hadn't been part of the program.
You keep saying this. But you've yet to provide a source for it. It's very odd, considering which systems and technologies were actually holding the project up - none of them having to do with the STOVL systems.

>The guy running the program agrees with me on this:
That's because he knows that the next USAF fighter will need to replace the F-22, and he doesn't want it compromised by either CATOBAR or STOVL requirements, period.

>There is no reason why the STOVL program had to be married to the other two.
There are several major reasons why it should have been. Not least of which is overall cost, just for separate F-16 and F-18 replacement projects in conjunction with retracting funding.

>I'm arguing there shouldn't have been a STOVL program AT ALL.
Yet you've provided not compelling evidence why this should be so, considering the effective combat history of the Harrier in several wars, the lack of CATOBAR carriers for the UK and Italy, not to mention the USN's 9 operational LHD/LHAs which require strike/CAP squadrons.

You also conveniently ignore just how much more expensive CATOBAR carriers are than STOVL platforms, which is again a very important issue in the real world for navies facing increasing procurement costs against tight budgets.

Stop just saying the same shit over and over and make an actual argument.

>>31354930

Right, but nothing in that post suggests amphibious assault, only that it is a carrier, which it is.

>>31354872

If Japan's needs should change it wouldn't be unthinkable they would be reconfigured in a mid life refit. I'm talking on the scale of decades. Perhaps by then Australia or Canada might have decided to buy a light STOVL & helicopter carrier.

It's the longer term view.

File: Izumo-1.htm.jpg (2MB, 4512x3008px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4512x3008px

>>31354905

Most of the recent delays are software related which is normal. However, the earlier delays were caused by the inherent complication of trying to make three different aircraft (CTOL, CATOBAR, STOVL) have an 80% common airframe which is basically impossible. It isn't some huge coincidence that they started finally making serious progress after the commonality requirements were relaxed.

>>31354930

Well, that's not 100% true. The Izumo can carry around 400 marines in addition to the typical crew and deploy them via helicopter. I agree that it shouldn't be called an amphibious carrier, but it still has utility for such operations.

>>31354960
>You also conveniently ignore just how much more expensive CATOBAR carriers are than STOVL platforms

? In what way?
Steam catapults are not particularly expensive.
EMALS is expensive but hopefully the price will reduce soon enough, or maybe the defense contractor is just fleecing the government.

>>31354960

>That's because he knows that the next USAF fighter will need to replace the F-22, and he doesn't want it compromised by either CATOBAR or STOVL requirements, period.

So now we're admitting there are compromises?

File: 2560x1440-desert_military_harrier_airplane_aircraft-3044.jpg (311KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 2560x1440px

Meh, I think the biggest travesty regarding the JSF is that we could have had a gorgeous f-16/22 style canopy, but since the Navy refused to compromise on its birdstrike resistance demands, we have a nice ugly canopy bow.

As someone who will end up flying both platforms, AV-8B/F-35B, 90% of the info in these threads is straight laughable.

I don't know where some of these guys get the motivation to just talk out of their ass constantly as if they actually know something about one of the most highly classified projects in the DOD. Fuck me, its hysterical.

It's hard to understate the importance of the 35B to the USMC. Gives us a 5th gen, LO, strike platform organic to MAGTF, unreal. The USMC has taken a lot of shit, but we have set ourselves up magnificently for the next 50 years.

Also, regardless of age and capability, as a stick and rudder jet, the AV-8B is an absolute monster. People tend to write it off due to the lack of burner. Yet it will out accelerate a super hornet in full blower down low. 13.5k empty weight with a motor that puts out 22k+ lbs of thrust makes for a good time.

>>31354872
Also politics happens, and Japan has only been constitutionally allowed to have aircraft carriers for about a year.

>>31354030
>However, in practice this idea has never been successfully implemented.

Harriers operating from roads in Kuwait were the most valuable CAS assets avalible in 1991.

>>31355022
>The USMC has taken a lot of shit, but we have set ourselves up magnificently for the next 50 years.

Yea except for the fact all their ground vehicles are 40 years old, and they can't even afford to operate their aircraft.

>>31355011

Come on, use a little imagination. Maintenance, crewing, training.

Skilled people and time anon. All very costly. Both two things in life you never have enough of.

>>31355022

>Meh, I think the biggest travesty regarding the JSF is that we could have had a gorgeous f-16/22 style canopy, but since the Navy refused to compromise on its birdstrike resistance demands, we have a nice ugly canopy bow.

Please elaborate I am interested.

>>31355022

>Gives us a 5th gen, LO, strike platform organic to MAGTF, unreal

This is true. However, wouldn't you get the same capability (and better) out of the F-35C?

>>31355006
>However, the earlier delays were caused by the inherent complication of trying to make three different aircraft (CTOL, CATOBAR, STOVL) have an 80% common airframe which is basically impossible.
If this were true, you would have had a source for this by now.

Also, I wonder if you'll also provide a source that maintenance supplies and replacement parts are not 80% common between the airframes.

>>31355021
>So now we're admitting there are compromises?
No, we're noting that a pure air superiority fighter has very different and fundamental performance requirements and optimization focuses compared to a multi-role. Anyone with half a brain and access to a basic history of jet aviation will be aware of this.

The USAF is the only US service still running dedicated air superiority platforms, thus it will wish to develop a dedicated A2A platform for 6th gen deployment. This is not rocket science.

>>31355057
>This is true. However, wouldn't you get the same capability (and better) out of the F-35C?
And what, exactly, would they operate off of the 9 fucking LHD/LHAs?

Why are you just ignoring the operational and cost advantages of STOVL carriers for the USMC, USN and many other navies around the world?

>waaaaaah, the real world doesn't fit my narrative, i'd better ignore it

>>31355006
>the inherent complication of trying to make three different aircraft

Do you have any specific examples or just vague handwaves.

>>31355011
>? In what way?
>Steam catapults are not particularly expensive.
>EMALS is expensive but hopefully the price will reduce soon enough, or maybe the defense contractor is just fleecing the government.
Why are you commenting on this subject when you are so hopelessly ignorant of a very basic fact in carrier operation and procurement?

Please fuck off.

>>31355052
Also add in that a steam catapult requires a ton of power to operate. Hence why there is only one active non nuclear CATOBAR carrier, and its the quarter the displacement of a Nimitz

>>31355072
>>31355072

Explain to me how you create a CTOL jet, a CATOBAR jet, and a STOVL jet while getting them all to use an 80% airframe AND get each variant to have acceptable performance.

You can't.

Nobody can.

If you start with an impossible goal you're gonna have delays anon.

>>31355072

Explain what you mean by "pure air superiority fighter"?

You don't actually think they're going to introduce a new fighter jet with no A2G do you?

>>31355051
>the USMC only operates AAV7's

File: harrier_flight_f_35b_earth_lightning_ii_av_8b_93710_2560x1440.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>31355051

Yea, but that's definitely due in large part to the effects of a the large operational demands of a 15 year conflict coupled with sequestration. The Hornet fleet is completely fucked, and the Harriers, while better, are definitely ready to get replaced. The entire situation wasn't helped by the fact that the 35 has seen so many delays. We were supposed to be operational with it years ago.

>>31355057

The Air Force birdstrike requirement I guess is more lax than the Navy's. Originally, the 35 had that single piece construction that you would see on an F-16. I guess they couldn't maintain what the Navy wanted without the canopy bow. Total bummer. Harriers/Hornets have great bubble canopies with good vis, but not having that bow makes it feel like you're literally sitting on top of the world.

The 35C is a more capable platform than the B. It's just the nature of the engineering. However, look at what we operate off of. We have 10+ amphibs and they're building more. You can't always have a big deck. These small MAGTFs/MEUs allow the Pentagon a small, flexible force with a ground complement. Yea, 20 Ford class carriers around the world would be great, but we live in a resource confined reality. The kind of things that warrant a MEU/SPMAGTF don't need a carrier battle group. Think smaller, lower intensity conflicts, the exact stuff we see now. There's a reason Harrier squadrons are dropping fuck loads of ordnance in Syria/Iraq right now.

>>31355107

>And what, exactly, would they operate off of the 9 fucking LHD/LHAs?

Helicopters.

>Why are you just ignoring the operational and cost advantages of STOVL carriers for the USMC

I'm saying that buying CATOBAR carriers would have been more useful. You can carry a larger payload and strike further with CATOBAR aircraft.

>>31355150
You still haven't provided any particular support for your statement besides "because I say so".

>>31355150

I like how you didn't provide a source.

>>31355158
>M1A1's
>LAV's
>AAV's
>AH-1's

>>31354369

Except STOBAR is catagorically inferior to STOVL.

>>31355150
>while getting them all to use an 80% airframe
I didn't say that. I said maintenance and replacement parts commonality.

>AND get each variant to have acceptable performance.
Considering the performance of all three existing variants of the F-35, I would look you in the eye like pic related, point at those three jets and wait for obvious fucking reality to finally dawn on you.

>If you start with an impossible goal you're gonna have delays anon.
You have yet to provide a single source suggesting it was the STOVL, and not the massive bleeding edge tech risks of the JHMD, EOTS, EO-DAS, MADL, and other software/hardware integration issues which slowed the project.

>Explain what you mean by "pure air superiority fighter"?
Read a book, please. Just take a couple hours and educate yourself. Stop being a tool.

>You don't actually think they're going to introduce a new fighter jet with no A2G do you?
There is a vast difference between "no A2G" and "heavy A2A focus with a commitment to be the most effective air superiority platform on the planet to ensure top cover on any conceivable operation, and maybe drop some SDBs when it's not doing anything else".

>>31355189
They can also provide great support for a carrier group. F-35Bs flying CAP missions can free up Super Hornets and F-35Cs for strike duties.

>>31355191
>I'm saying that buying CATOBAR carriers would have been more useful.

Depends on doctrine. Depends depends depends. Generalisations and blanket statements don't mean anything. I can fit a large tube shape up my shitter, now I consider this useful, but to others it might not be.

>>31355191

And? How many CATOBAR carriers do you want to build? 50?

You're stating something that is already assumed. I could ask why even have carriers? We could design fighters that carry more payload/fuel that require 15 thousand foot runways.

It's understood that there is a reduced capability in operating from ships. The tradeoff between the B/C is worth the cost in order to operate off of amphibs.

>>31355205
None of the others currently in use are 40 years old.

>>31355191
>I'm saying that buying CATOBAR carriers would have been more useful. You can carry a larger payload and strike further with CATOBAR aircraft.
But you're not carrying almost an entire MEU. Which is the entire fucking point. An MEU plus everything you need to perform an air or sea assault with organic CAS/strike support. THAT'S THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.

Read. A. Book.

>>31355250
AH-1 first flew in the 60's
LAV, M1A1 is from the 80's
And the marine core bought 11,000 mraps which will be more or less useless anywhere else, what a fucking disaster

File: 1470301291380.jpg (90KB, 639x615px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 639x615px

>>31355272

Come on now, to suggest that the AH-1Z is comparable to the AH-1T/J is straight disingenuous. That's like saying the Air Force is flying F-16s/15s from the 70s/80s.

Troll harder.

File: san_antonio_class_l3[1].jpg (230KB, 1024x622px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1024x622px

>>31355239

>And? How many CATOBAR carriers do you want to build? 50?

I think that 12 - 14 would be good enough (counting the ones they already have). My only point here is that if the Navy hadn't made so many LHA's then it would be able to afford a larger number of full-sized carriers and those full-sized carriers would be more valuable overall. Let's be clear about this. I don't mean 12 - 14 additional full-sized carriers. I mean 2 - 4 carriers which are additional to the ones already in the fleet.

And yes, you still need amphibious ships for the marines but you can provide that capability with LPD's such as the Antonio-class.

Now the America-class LHA is actually a step in the right direction because it doesn't have a well-deck which makes it more like a traditional helicopter carrier than an LHA.

>>31355272
The USMC doesn't fly the "AH-1".

Vehicles from the mid 80's are not 40 years old, and the M1A1 FEP is actually more advanced than the M1A2 SEP in some ways.

>MRAP's, something needed for the war being fought

Hello goalposts.

>>31355340
The only thing wrong with the LHA's is that they are too small, shoulda been full sized conventional powered super carriers.

>>31355340
>Now the America-class LHA is actually a step in the right direction

It's clearly not though. If they wanted it to be a carrier they should have put a ramp on it, and if they wanted it to be amphibious they should have put the well deck on it. Now it's just a crappy carrier that's going to need to bring an additional LSD or LPD along to carry all the shit it's supposed to be carrying. They're putting a well deck on future models for a reason.

>>31355340
>And yes, you still need amphibious ships for the marines but you can provide that capability with LPD's such as the Antonio-class.
Then you have no organic fixed wing strike/interdiction/CAS capability. Which is a huge part of the entire point of a fucking MEU.

>>31355340
>Now the America-class LHA is actually a step in the right direction because it doesn't have a well-deck which makes it more like a traditional helicopter carrier than an LHA.
It's still every bit as much an LHA, just focused on air assault for missions like Afghanistan, rather than air and sea against AOs with a coast line.

I say again: stop posting and educate yourself. Nearly all of your opinions are based on factually erroneous basic assumptions.

File: AH-1Z Seafair 2016.jpg (239KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 900x600px

>>31355355
>The USMC doesn't fly the "AH-1".
Holy. Fucking. Shit.

Pic goddamn related.

>>31355355
I understand the reason they bought MRAP's, though I definately think they could have looked a little further ahead for vehicles useful beyond the present conflict.

>>31354030
What does F-35B lose to include STOVL capability? If it's just the gun and maneuverability I think it's a really good trade off. This basically adds about 10 more ships to US navy that can operate similar to carriers while sharing a maintenance infrastructure with other versions of aircraft.

Also it's still a nice gimmick to have STOVL capabilities for a few combat situations where it is crucial if it doesn't cost much (it doesn't).

>>31355421
>>31355336
The fact that an AH-1W or AH-1Z sort of look like a AH-1 from Vietnam does not make them the same thing.

>>31355442
>sorry, you have to drive a Humvee because an MRAP is of limited use outside of COIN

>>31355466
nice damage control

>>31355461
>If it's just the gun and maneuverability
Both the same as the F-35C at operational altitude. In fact, the F-35B actually has a better instantaneous turn rate than the F-35C with exactly the same G rating.

>>31355461
Really, the biggest sacrifice is fuel capacity, since the lift fan replaces the spare fuel tank that otherwise would have been in the A and C variants.

And honestly, it's the C variant that will take the biggest maneuverability hit due to all the modifications they have to put in to make it CATOBAR capable.

>>31355491
nice projection after getting BTFO with facts

So basically OP thinks navies that cannot afford to buy super carriers should not bother having fixed wing aircraft of any kind?

File: Mistral_IMG_6856[1].jpg (979KB, 4004x2475px) Image search: [Google]

979KB, 4004x2475px

>>31355405

>Then you have no organic fixed wing strike/interdiction/CAS capability.

Yes, you would. You'd get those in the form of the 1 - 3 additional full-size carriers you'd get if you didn't buy the smaller Amphibious carriers.

>>31355510
>Really, the biggest sacrifice is fuel capacity, since the lift fan replaces the spare fuel tank that otherwise would have been in the A and C variants.
Yet the F-35B still manages a 450nmi combat radius, compared to only 300nmi for the Harrier, the aircraft it is replacing. That's the cogent point.

>>31355556
>buy full size carriers
>lose amphibious assault capability

>>31355556
Do you know what 'organic' means?

And do you understand why 10 smaller vessels is better than '1-3' larger vessels for this purpose?

>>31354205
>Any real amphibious operation
Actual amphibious operations are not real, according to Armored Gunboat Man
>will involve support from an actual CATOBAR aircraft carrier
Not every contingency is a major war
>What's the point of keeping a dozen STOVL fighters on the amphib?
The one-third of a dozen STOVL fighters provide a native strike fighter capability to the expeditionary group, in all of the roles the fighter is capable of. Harriers were pretty much for CAS only. With the F-35B the mission set expands to include OCA, DCA, deep strikes for interdiction

>>31355556
>Yes, you would. You'd get those in the form of the 1 - 3 additional full-size carriers you'd get if you didn't buy the smaller Amphibious carriers.
So now you've tied all of your amphibious forces directly to all your carriers, and they can no longer operate independently. Fucking genius.

Are you unaware of the reason there are CSGs and separate ESGs? Are you really this fucking stupid? You just reduced USN/USMC combined arms battle groups from 19 to maximum 13.

>>31355585
>With the F-35B the mission set expands to include OCA, DCA, deep strikes for interdiction and other purposes, and aerial recon

>>31355597
also elint and electronic attack

>>31355585

>With the F-35B the mission set expands to include OCA, DCA, deep strikes for interdiction

These are missions which can and should be performed by CATOBAR fighters such as the F-35C.

>>31355588
>>31355597
Yes, and let us not forget how much more effective from a ground casualties taken and munitions expended standpoint deep interdiction is compared to CAS.

>>31355609
Which would be nice if you always had a CATOBAR carrier nearby to back you up, but that isn't always possible.

File: Fred Thompson knows youre a moron.gif (47KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 300x225px

>>31355609
>gets repeatedly and completely BTFO
>keeps repeating the same, tired assertions
>no new argument
>no new facts
>no new sources
>just retarded repetition

>>31355609
>can
yes...
>and should
old man yells at sky, news at 11

>>31354263
>F-35 is possibly a failure due to this alone.
The STOVL F-35B is a modified A, not the other way around.

File: mcdonnell-douglas-av-8b-harrier-ii-night-attack.jpg (45KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x315px

Alright, this thread is headed no where in a hurry. He's just straight up trolling at this point.

Let's turn this bitch into a VSTOL appreciation thread. I'll start with my main squeeze.

File: Harrier_fireing_lg_ok.jpg (379KB, 700x457px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 700x457px

>>31355680
I have this on my wall.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (134KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1920x1080px

>>31355680

She's a dirty old warhorse but I love her to death.

We call it "riding the dragon". It's one jet you'd better never turn your back on because she'll fucking bite you in a hurry. But, there is no computer telling you what you can and can't do and for that, she's a pilot's airplane through and through.

File: 1473647238664.jpg (422KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 2100x1500px

Armored gunboat man, armored gunboat man
Doing the things a armored gunboat man can
What's he like? Gliders!
Armored gunboat man

Is he a tard, or is he a sperg?
When he's on /k/ does he get rekt?
Or does the wreckage get him instead?
Nobody knows, armored gunboat man

File: mistral_class_l3[1].jpg (117KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1024x682px

>>31355627
>>31355609
>>31355627

I think this is my fault.

I'm not explaining what I'm trying to say very well.

I'm sorry.

Yes, the Navy does need smaller carriers such as the America-class.

However, the America-class is actually too big because it has to accommodate the STOVL meme. You could afford a larger number of helicopter platforms if they didn't have to big enough to accommodate STOVL aircraft. That's why I was posting pictures of the Mistral. It's a good example of an appropriately-sized helicopter carrier.

>>31355703
You fly these or are you just a fan?

File: 1451255531030.png (310KB, 459x637px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 459x637px

>>31355729
>However, the America-class is actually too big because it has to accommodate the STOVL meme

File: 1464387105318.jpg (1003KB, 3925x2610px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 3925x2610px

>>31355734

Attack pilot

>>31355729
The Wasp and America class vessels are designed to head their own ESGs. Smaller vessels such as the Mistral are not capable of that. They have superior sensors, far superior self-defense capability, and the room to handle the staff required to head large groups of ships.

>>31354030

I have learned at 4chan /k/ that Every thread starter with a long story is a
>a Ruskie with a complex
>a Chink with a complex
>a N-Korean with a jing jong ding dong
>a pissed off communistic Eurofag
>a generic muslim (easy to spot thanks to Al-Ghazali and his legacy leading to the destruction of the intellectual dimension of arab world haha)

Honestly there are very few other real variations.

File: listerinefag.png (1MB, 1902x9492px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1902x9492px

>>31355729
>I think this is my fault.
>I'm not explaining what I'm trying to say very well.
>I'm sorry.
Fuck. It's listerinefag again. Same fucking shit he says every time he gets BTFO, but he never seems to fucking learn.

>>31355853
You missed listerinefag. He's literally a mentally retarded felon who drinks listerine because he can't get a hold of booze, and he is walking cancer.

Responsible for most of the dumbest naval threads on /k/.

>>31355900

Don't you dare try to group me together with that moron. I have never once advocated for the usage of BB's on this website.

>>31354297
That is no argument.

>>31355936
Why shouldn't we? Every single idea you've post ITT shows a complete lack of basic subject matter knowledge on par with a BBfag's retardation. Your goalposts have moved so far I can't find them with field glasses, and you fucking refuse to learn from those with a little more insight in the matter.

Explain how you're any fucking different.

File: 2012_F35A_High_AOA_12J00765_42_1269967624_9200.jpg (75KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x1200px

>>31355762
What kind of roles do the Harriers fill when they are on an amphibious ship?

What kind of changes will the F-35B bring?

>>31356026
>What kind of changes will the F-35B bring?

Being able to fight other modern fighters as well as providing greatly expanded situational awareness to not only the pilot, but to every asset the F-35 is datalinked to. That's just for starters.

Right now all the Harrier can do is drop bombs, and that's pretty much it.

>>31355977

I've never moved the goalposts at all. Hell, nobody can even stay on topic. The only point of this thread was to explain why STOVL aircraft aren't worth the price. Every dollar you spend on a STOVL aircraft is a dollar that you did not spend on a CATOBAR aircraft which would have given you superior range and capability.

>>31356088
Yes, and let's just leave the Marines and Royal Navy without a functioning fixed wing fighter. We've already gone over this. The Navy's needs don't always align with what other branches or militaries need.

Plus the USN has the least stake in the F-35, so it makes more sense to invest in the variants that are needed the most.

>>31356049
>Right now all the Harrier can do is drop bombs, and that's pretty much it.

It's not as useless as all that. It's got pretty decent avionics and even BVR capability. They've been used in recon roles in pretty much every American conflict in the last 20 years.

>>31355933
Damn missed it.

So,
>a Ruskie with a complex
>a Chink with a complex
>a N-Korean with a jing jong ding dong
>a pissed off communistic Eurofag
>a generic muslim (easy to spot thanks to Al-Ghazali and his legacy leading to the destruction of the intellectual dimension of arab world haha)
>listerinefag

listerinefag added... We are still getting involved with these beyond dumb threads.

I went through this thread and spotted a handful of noobs (and that's okay), but that shouldn't still cut it as /k/ thread this long.

Granted I have seen some stupid shit here but they usually don't live that long.

File: Spacey Unimpressed.gif (891KB, 325x252px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 325x252px

>>31356088
>I've never moved the goalposts at all.
Top kek.

>STOVL aircraft totally useless, never worth a shit in any situation
numberous citations of historical effectiveness, budgetary reasons and operational/tactical reasons
>F-35A and C were compromised by the B
laughingwhores.jpg
>F-35A and C took longer because of the B
[citation needed and still unprovided]
>STOVL carriers are worthless
numberous citations of historical effectiveness, budgetary reasons and operational/tactical reasons
>the America class is a step in the right direction
you don't have a clue what direction it has stepped in
>Mistral class is better
completely unsuited to command an ESG or provide organic strike/interdiction/CAS

I will cite every goddamn evolution if you have a memory that shitty.
Next you'll tell us all carriers are obsolete.

Just fuck off already. Go educate yourself.

>>31356124

The Royal Navy decided to make their carriers as STOVL when they could have had CATOBAR easily. So yes, they have to be accommodated. But it was still a mistake for them to build STOVL carriers in the first place.

>>31356156
>The Royal Navy decided to make their carriers as STOVL when they could have had CATOBAR easily.
Why the fuck are you even posting when you're so fucking ignorant of the basic issues?

STOP WASTING TIME HERE AND SPEND SOME TIME ACTUALLY READING ABOUT THIS SHIT.

>>31356147
Don't forget the bipolar Brit

>a Ruskie with a complex
More likely actual paid Russian shills working for Center for Internet Studies
>a Chink with a complex
Any Chink posting here is likely to be a paid shill, since the Chinese public doesn't frequent 4chan
>a N-Korean with a jing jong ding dong
I don't think this one exists, I've never seen it

>>31356156
Except the Royal Navy literally only has enough money to either buy one CATOBAR carrier or two STOVL carriers. And as the French have shown, having only one carrier is a shitshow because you'll be stuck without an active carrier for half a year everytime it returns to port for maintenance.

>>31356249
The CdG will also be undergoing a refit from 2017-2019 I believe. So that's no carrier for two years.

>>31356149

>STOVL aircraft totally useless, never worth a shit in any situation

Please point out where I said this.

>F-35A and C were compromised by the B

This is true. It complicated the entire design phase.

>F-35A and C took longer because of the B

Well, yeah, it's not might fault you didn't watch the video I linked to. The man heavily implied that the STOVL version added a new layer of complication.

>you don't have a clue what direction it has stepped in

It's much bigger than it should be but the general concept should be applauded.

>completely unsuited to command an ESG or provide organic strike/interdiction/CAS

But it is cheaper than a STOVL carrier by a good margin, which could allow you to get a extra full-sized carrier or two to fill those roles, and they would be able to do it better.

>>31356290
Trading 9 ESGs for one or two CSGs is a shitty trade.

>>31356308

I never said eliminate them completely anon.

>reading comprehension

>>31356319
If you're abandoning LHDs and LHAs to build a couple more carriers, what's going to be leading all the ESGs exactly?

>>31356290
>Please point out where I said this.
See your own fucking OP: >>31354030
>However, in practice this idea has never been successfully implemented. The only niche where STOVL craft have ever found success is when being operated from amphibious carriers, where they are not even really needed. So what then, is the justification for continued purchases of these aircraft?

>This is true. It complicated the entire design phase.
Once again, please point to a single way in which the designs of the A or C were in any way compromised by this.

>Well, yeah, it's not might fault you didn't watch the video I linked to. The man heavily implied that the STOVL version added a new layer of complication.
You posted a 2 hour and 34 minute video without a single time marker for where to begin looking. That's not a source, that's a fucking dodge. If I were to go looking for one fucking sentence in there, I'd still be watching the fucking thing.

Furthermore, if the implication is that the engine (your above comment) is what caused the 5 year delay you keep citing, I would love to see a single source for this. Just one.

>It's much bigger than it should be but the general concept should be applauded.
It's literally optimized for fixed wing STOVL and air assault operations. Exactly what you've been arguing against this whole thread.

>But it is cheaper than a STOVL carrier by a good margin, which could allow you to get a extra full-sized carrier or two to fill those roles, and they would be able to do it better.
You're so ignorant you don't even know that crewing, maintenance, refit and other operational costs make up the fast majority of ship life cycle costs. Tell you what, provide a source on HOW MUCH CHEAPER it is to operate over time. Just one. Prove that you have even basic facts at your fingertips in this matter.

>>31356346

You still have LHA's, but they're smaller (less than 30000 tons, somewhere in the neighborhood of the Izumo or Mistral) and not quite as many. They also do not have well decks. So just like the America-class but downsized a bit. LPD's then provide the bulk of amphibious capability with LHA's providing helicopter support and you have 1 or 2 extra Gerald Ford-sized carriers to provide fixed-wing support. Oh, and also consider introducing a class of LST because that is something the US navy lacks right now.

>>31356471
I don't think you understand. A Mistral-like ship cannot lead an ESG because it does not have the facilities to do so.

>>31354477

>United States
>United Kingdom

Considering that these two countries make up roughly 100% of the world's blue-water navies, I think it is a fine argument.

>>31356471
>you have 1 or 2 extra Gerald Ford-sized carriers to provide fixed-wing support
Great. So you have the equivalent of one extra carrier two thirds of the year. Compared to an equivalent 3 ESGs every day of the year. Fucking brilliant trade off there, genius.

Maybe before you make these threads, you should actually bother to look into life cycle and O&M costs, manning/training costs and at-sea rates on things like CVNs and LHD/LHAs.

File: USS_Gerald_R._Ford_(CVN-78)_on_the_James_River_in_2013[1].jpg (2MB, 3900x2221px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3900x2221px

>>31356371

>Once again, please point to a single way in which the designs of the A or C were in any way compromised by this.

An overly long development history and the fact that they must share funding with an unnecessary aircraft.

>You posted a 2 hour and 34 minute video without a single time marker for where to begin looking.

You don't have to watch the entire video, just the parts where he is talking. He says it near the end of his speech.

>It's literally optimized for fixed wing STOVL and air assault operations. Exactly what you've been arguing against this whole thread.

I am not against fixed wing CAS or air assault. I just think that STOVL is a poor platform for providing those capabilities.

>You're so ignorant you don't even know that crewing, maintenance, refit and other operational costs make up the fast majority of ship life cycle costs. Tell you what, provide a source on HOW MUCH CHEAPER it is to operate over time. Just one. Prove that you have even basic facts at your fingertips in this matter.

America-class is $3.4 billion per unit.

Izumo-class is $1.2 billion per unit.

Mistral-class is $600 million per unit.

What makes the America so much more expensive? It has to be big enough to operate STOVL aircraft.

So 4 America-class carriers will cost 13.6 billion dollars.

Now this is where things get interesting.

The Gerald Ford costs 10.5 billion.

So for the price of 4 America-class carriers, you could get 2 Izumo-class carriers plus 1 addition Gerald Ford. So you get two helicopter carriers each capable of launching a sizeable air assault plus a massive super-carrier capable of easily supporting marines with fixed-wing CAS.

>>31354263
>problem comes in when you try to make one that does everything and has that too.
stopped reading.

File: Ps2 VTOL.jpg (407KB, 1020x370px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 1020x370px

I have no intimate knowledge of jet, VTOL, and avionics technology, but I've always wondered why we don't have rotating jet engines like pic related, similar to an Osprey.

>>31356234
Fair enough.

However a thread starter with a long ass first post is almost always of foreign origin. Their English is formally very good. They just don't speak English.

>>31356633

>An overly long development history and the fact that they must share funding with an unnecessary aircraft.

You're missing the fact that the STOVL did NOT lead to hold-ups, it was the bleeding edge software that has caused us the most fits

>I am not against fixed wing CAS or air assault. I just think that STOVL is a poor platform for providing those capabilities.

Compared to what? Compared to nothing? Here's the reasoning

>I have assault ships
>my assault ships have marines
>my marines have tanks
>my tanks have helicopter support
>my helicopters have air superiority
>all from one boat

we have fucking THREE ESGs in the water at all times, we can invade THREE small nations at once.

Your idea is that
>lol build more carriers lol
fucking sucks because you are missing the part where you cannot stuff thousands of marines and tanks and equipment onto a Ford or a Mistral.
Also
>1 Ford
Congratulations, you have 1/3 of an extra carrier due to exercises and maintenance

You are missing the ENTIRE POINT of the doctrine of the USN and USMC. It fucking makes me sick.

>price of 4 America-class carriers, you could get 2 Izumo-class carriers plus 1 addition Gerald Ford

Okay but what about crew? What about training? What about maintenance? What about uptime?

We've already pointed out that you get less of 1 carrier when you build 1 carrier. Where do you put the Marines? Do they sit on the deck of the Mistral all the way to the war like camouflaged hobos?

On an America class, I don't have to put nuclear technicians (a scarce commodity in the USN) on an America, same goes for other hard to come by MOSes.

Basically, you miss the entire point of amphibious ships.

>>31356752

Alright, you win.

You've officially stumped me.

What is this you keep saying about getting less than 1 carrier per carrier? Why is an additional Gerald Ford actually 1/3 of a Gerald Ford? What?

>We've already pointed out that you get less of 1 carrier when you build 1 carrier.

Literally what are you talking about. 1 carrier = 1 carrier.

File: Sagan Science.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>31356633
>An overly long development history and the fact that they must share funding with an unnecessary aircraft.
You have yet to prove or provide a single source as to how much of this is due to the F-35B as opposed to other tech risks within the project.

[citation fucking needed]

>>31356633
>just the parts where he is talking.
That's over an hour and forty minutes. And I watched the last 15 minutes. Fucking nothing.

[citation needed]

>I just think that STOVL is a poor platform for providing those capabilities.
Yet you've ignored several anons noting the combat performance of the Harrier in the Fauklands, Desert Storm and AfghIraqistan, where it was excellent. Especially telling considering how superior the F-35B is to the Harrier.

>America-class is $3.4 billion per unit.
>Izumo-class is $1.2 billion per unit.
>Mistral-class is $600 million per unit.
Are you so completely stupid that you don't know the difference between per unit procurement cost and life cycle cost? Do you even have a clue how small a percentage of life cycle costs are represented by procurement cost?

>So for the price of 4 America-class carriers, you could get 2 Izumo-class carriers plus 1 addition Gerald Ford.
No. You can't. Check crewing levels. You've just increased manning by over 2,500 crew, plus the massive added cost of nuclear operations. Plus the massive tactical opportunity cost of forcing all of your amphib forces to operate with a CSG instead of as independent ESGs. Which has been pointed out at least FIVE FUCKING TIMES ITT.

Finally, you've reduced your Marine forces from 1,600 on a single America to 800 on TWO Izumos, which each require just as much naval crew as an America to run, not to mention the lost armor, artillery and other gear.

READ. A. FUCKING. BOOK.

>>31356633
>What makes the America so much more expensive? It has to be big enough to operate STOVL aircraft.

That's not why it's so expensive. It also operates 9 landing spots vs the Izumo's 5, has greater defensive capability, has the space to carry a large portion of an MEU, routinely carries far more aircraft, and should have a damn well deck (and future models of the America will have it, as do the Wasps).

Both the Wasp and America class have far superior capabilities compared to a Mistral or Izumo, outside of just carrying Harriers/F-35Bs (which in and of itself is an incredible capability).

>>31356809
Its maintenance cycling. As a rule of thumb, a ship is only available 1/3 of a time. (1/3 actively deployed, 1/3 in drydock/maintenace, 1/3 in quals)

>>31356809
>What is this you keep saying about getting less than 1 carrier per carrier? Why is an additional Gerald Ford actually 1/3 of a Gerald Ford? What?
>>31356809
>Literally what are you talking about. 1 carrier = 1 carrier.
At sea rates, you fucking dipshit. For any given carrier, roughly 1/3 of the service life is spent at dock, in refit or in drydock, 1/3 in training or exercises and 1/3 on combat operations/patrol/etc. It's actually about 30%/25%/45%, but you get the fucking picture. If you weren't a completely ignorant shitbag, you would have already known this.

>>31356809
For every carrier you have in active duty, you have one carrier that's going into a maintenance cycle and one coming out of one. So for every three carriers you have you really only have one. You can surge this for a limited amount of time, but not for standard operations.

That's why the French are having so much trouble with just one carrier (in fact they're about to be without one for at least a year and a half as it goes into a long refit), and why the British ensured they built two. They'll still most likely have a few periods where there are no carriers available, but it's at least workable.

>>31356809

Because half to two-thirds of the time a carrier is undergoing maintenance, training, or refitting. Not to mention during that carrier's life it will undergo overhauls, and be unavailable for a significant period of time completely.

For instance, we have 9 ESGs total, 3 are in the water at all times.

Right now we have 9 CSGs out in the water.

>>31356842
>>31356846

But if that's true, then doesn't that kind of prove the Navy needs more full-sized carriers? They need at least 12 carriers to have a 4 carrier navy.

>>31356889
No, it means they need all of these Wasps and Americas around running ESGs to do the bullshit jobs carriers don't have time for.

>>31356889
You can "surge" them, where you take some of the ships and increase their availability temporarily. IIRC, the US can put out 6 carriers if needed in an emergency. Also, this is why the USN has a 11 CVN requirement(temporarily reduced for 10 because Enterprise is bye-bye)

>>31356889
>But if that's true, then doesn't that kind of prove the Navy needs more full-sized carriers? They need at least 12 carriers to have a 4 carrier navy.
Congress mandated that there be one carrier operational at all times for the Atlantic, Pacific and ME/Indian Ocean at all times, plus two in reserve. That's the 11 CVN congressional carrier minimum, which has been relaxed to allow for the gap between the Big E retiring and the Ford coming online.

They can also be surged and maintenance put off at the cost of longer downtime later. During the GWOT there were times when there were 6 carriers operational at the same time.

>>31356889

No, because if we REALLY SUPER
NEED TO (see: never) we can pull carriers from quals and training and bump those numbers to 8-9.

Again, we have established that we NEED the assault ships, (see: >>31356809)

What you are now proposing is that we double our carriers. This is stupid for reasons I refuse to spoonfeed you.

>guys, guys we have more carriers than the rest of the planet
>guys get this
>guys, wait
>guys, let's DOUBLE that, lol
>yeah, let's DOUBLE our amount of carriers
>lol

>>31356946
>>31356923
I wonder if the US is overtly cautious about that. Since I believe the Bongs are planning to operate with one carrier active and one in maintenance/training/whatever. And the CdG can operate about half the time. So they're both shooting for about 50% availability.

File: 1468432597437.jpg (50KB, 500x324px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x324px

>>31356752

>Do they sit on the deck of the Mistral all the way to the war like camouflaged hobos?

I'm fucking dead

>>31356982

Bongs and Frogs don't have carriers as large and advanced as us.

Again though, only 1/3 is maintenance, another 1/3 is training

>>31356982
>I wonder if the US is overtly cautious about that. Since I believe the Bongs are planning to operate with one carrier active and one in maintenance/training/whatever.
They are non-nuclear, so lower drydock/maintenance requirements and no 4-year nuclear refueling downtime.

>And the CdG can operate about half the time.
It has historically operated about 1/4 of the time during it's service. This is partially due to the undersized reactors it was designed to use.

The USN designed the Nimitz class ships to last 50 years, and every downtime sees new systems and updates installed to keep them up to speed. This is part of the reason for the slightly higher down times, in exchange for much higher overall operational capability.

>>31356982
No. The Rn is too optimistic. No matter how much they finangle the maint cycle, there will be small gaps in time where both CVs won't be available. Carrier maintenance is a bitch like that

>>31356982

This is why you see the RN picking certain options that maximise up-time and decrease down-time. Like picking non-nuclear or STVOL.

>>31357043

I don't know about that, I'm sure they have a better grasp on things then we do on /k/. The QE class had been made with maximum availability in mind.

>>31357124

So then what's the benefit of nuclear-powered carriers? Prestige?

>>31357141

Operational range and mission uptime for the CSG

>>31357141
>So then what's the benefit of nuclear-powered carriers? Prestige?
Fixed wing AWACS and UNREP, hangar and deck park aircraft capacity, propulsion speed/endurance, etc.

>>31357141
>>31357194
Oh, and increased operational range, size, payload and performance of CATOBAR tactical aircraft.

>>31357194
>>31357206

But you don't need nuclear for CATOBAR.

>>31357252

I'm fucking done. You're wrong, and now you're arguing over small shit. Go and stay go.

>>31357252

Maybe not, but nobody does CATOBAR without nuclear power.

Nobody.

>>31357269

are u thick

Seriously

Do you actually think you can't have CATOBAR without nuclear power?

>>31357310

That wasn't the point. It is already been stated in the thread that QE could have gone CATOBAR whilst remaining conventionally powered.

>>31357333

You're not wrong about the CATOBAR, you're wrong about literally everything up to this point.

you:
>ask question
>but [xyz]
>therefore [stupid shit]
>get BTFO
>ask question
>but [xyz]
>therefore [stupid shit]

You've done this at least 5 fucking times now, I'm fucking done with your stupid ass. If you actually want to learn, go actually read some shit from real sources. If you don't have the time/energy/braincells to do that, lurk moar.

>>31357371

The funny part is that wasn't even me. You're coming down on some random guy who was right.

>>31357383

In which case I apologize

Anyway, the QE didn't go nuclear to increase uptime, decrease time at drydock, and to decrease both build and operational costs.

The QE is specifically designed to get the most bang for the buck. The US doctrine revolves around large amounts of forward deployed CSGs for extended periods of time, and therefore is well suited for nuclear carriers. IIRC the only time a QE will be forward deployed will be to assist missions in the ME out of Qatar.

>>31357333
>Do you actually think you can't have CATOBAR without nuclear power?
The energy requirements of running a full-strength CATOBAR system and steaming at 18 knots minimum for flight ops with a ship large enough to make the cost of a CATOBAR carrier worth it make nuclear power by far the better option. Period.

All the older, smaller conventional CATOBAR carriers (Midway class, R09 Ark Royal, etc.) had severe limits to the size of jet aircraft they could operate, and the Forrestal/Shitty Kitty class ships were but stepping stones to the Nimitz class.

>>31357371

Mate calm your shit, I am not OP.

>>31357141
>So then what's the benefit of nuclear-powered carriers? Prestige?

Longevity! CVN-65 was the first Nuclear powered Aircraft carrier ever built. At the Time it was the most expensive Naval vessel ever built. After it was completed congress decided to instead build conventional powered Aircraft carriers to save money because they believed Nuclear carriers were a waste of money. It became very evident very quickly the advantages of a Nuclear carrier over a conventional powered one. A nuke carrier could travel nonstop anywhere it needed to go and only needed to stop to resupply food and supplies, of which could last for months. The JFK (last conventional powered carrier built) Constantly had to stop at every port to refuel.

>>31357427

see >>31357417

>>31357420
>The energy requirements of running a full-strength CATOBAR system and steaming at 18 knots minimum for flight ops with a ship large enough to make the cost of a CATOBAR carrier worth it make nuclear power by far the better option. Period.

The RN, MoD and NAO (British GAO) disagree.

>>31357468
>The RN, MoD and NAO (British GAO) disagree.
Yet they decided to build the QE class STOVL rather than build non-nuclear CATOBAR carriers.

Still, I would like to see their studies on the matter. I don't believe I've seen the MoD and NAO ones. Please post them.

>>31357468
>cherry picks one line
>completely ignores second line

>>31356752
An additional way to look at the doctrine of amphibious vessels in the US is looking at the difference in survivability. All amphibious warfare vessels in the USN have 2 RAM launchers, coming out to 42 RAM. This is in addition to 8 Sea Sparrow or 32/64 ESSM depending on how modern the ship is. Then of course Phalanx and then autocannons.

Looking at foreign amphibious vessels you'll mostly only find Phalanx or Goalkeeper. The exceptions being the Izumo with it's SeaRAM and the MIstral with Simbad (which is just a MANPAD modified for sea-launch).

The US uses amphibious vessels in very different ways than the rest of the world.

>>31357442
Wouldn't hurt to spend more time in port rather than running in circles on the open sea

Just a different way of operating, doesn't mean conventional super carriers aren't a perfectly valid way of doing things.

These nuclear reactors are not cheap, nor is operating them.

>>31357442
>A nuke carrier could travel nonstop anywhere it needed to go and only needed to stop to resupply food and supplies
And with Underway Replenishment the only limit is crew fatigue and dockside maintenance.

>>31357518
>Wouldn't hurt to spend more time in port rather than running in circles on the open sea

If they're in port they're not on station now are they?

>>31357485
>Yet they decided to build the QE class STOVL rather than build non-nuclear CATOBAR carriers.

Was due to different issues. Can be found in the NAO studies.

>Still, I would like to see their studies on the matter. I don't believe I've seen the MoD and NAO ones. Please post them.

Sorry I've already booted down my pc, but Google "NAO carrier strike" should give you something.

>>31357537
What purpose do they serve being "on station"? If they don't have a mission to do

>>31357555
Enforcing the Pax Americana and free use of the seas.

>>31357494

Because I didn't see the relevancy.

>>31357518
>These nuclear reactors are not cheap, nor is operating them.
Nor is spending millions of dollars on a conventional carrier to refuel every time the tank runs dry. The Number cruncher already determined that the cost of fuel for conventional carriers outweighs the cost of up keep ona nuke carrier

>Wouldn't hurt to spend more time
except that's exactly what makes them a vulnerable target. Ever Hear of the USS Cole

>Just a different way of operating,
It's an inefficient way of operating. Spending time in port is equivalent to saying the carrier is doing absolutely nothing. Carriers can not conduct flight operation when in port. A nuclear Carrier is caoable of maintaining 100% operational effectiveness 100% of the time. Nuke carriers can operate at sea. But ever since Bill Clinton had the oilers decommissioned conventional powered carriers had to make port to refuel.

File: Theodore Roosevelt.jpg (87KB, 962x514px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 962x514px

>>31357555
Being present.

In addition they always have some mission. If they're not running support for one theater of operations or another, they're generally running exercises with allies. They're never not doing anything.

>>31357555
Can't respond to an international crisis if all your carriers are sitting in port.

>>31357588
>Because I didn't see the relevancy.
No. You willfully ignored the relevancy. There is a difference.

>>31357618

No I don't see the relevancy, please explain it to me.

>>31357600
>Nor is spending millions of dollars on a conventional carrier to refuel every time the tank runs dry
Switch to natural gas and save a bundle
Also make the flight deck solar panels.

>Ever Hear of the USS Cole
Cole went into a hostile port in a hostile country and wasn't allowed to defend itself.

The importance of the carrier is being ready for a war/conflict, not about doing PR missions or hunting pirates or harassing peaceful chinese island builders.

>>31355340
>no well-deck
>a step in the right direction
You need to fucking die

>>31357841

Carriers should not have well-decks.

>>31357752
>Cole went into a hostile port in a hostile country and wasn't allowed to defend itself.
Only reinforcing the postives as to why nuclear carriers are superior. Cole would never had been hit of Clinton hadn't forced the NAVY into decommissioning refueling ships to begin with. SOP Before was to refuel at sea or in home ports only. But as such it was forced to refuel at the closest "friendly" port they could make it to.

File: av-8b-harrier-aircraft-wallpaper-650x406.jpg (80KB, 650x406px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 650x406px

>>31356026

Being the only fixed wing asset on a amphib, they handle CAS/DAS, Air Interdiction, reconnaissance, self escort strike, etc. While we do currently use them as bomb trucks, the gen 4 TPODs we're currently using are the tits. Our AV-8Bs have had significant avionics upgrades that put them on parity with our hornets.

I would say the biggest weakness is our old ass radar. I would say that's going to be the greatest jump in going to the 35. It going to be, and I don't use this term lightly, a quantum leap. SA is the be all end all, and the 35 provides it in spades. Not only to the pilot, but to every platform that interfaces with it. I know it sounds like a sales brochure from LM, but until you've functioned in an environment where you feel information starved, it's not apparent how important it is.

>>31355466
>what are variants?

>>31357544
>Sorry I've already booted down my pc, but Google "NAO carrier strike" should give you something.
Found it. Nothing about nuclear at all. Only references to catobar equipment describes the development tree or notes that the steam catapult is unfeasible (non-nuclear, obviously) and they wanted EMALS, which was not ready yet. I fail to see how nuclear is not still the preferable choice from a range and energy production standpoint.

>ctrl+f nuclear
nothing

>ctrl+f catobar
nothing

>ctrl+f catapult
1) This required the ship to be fitted with launching equipment (catapults), and landing recovery equipment (arrestor gear) from the US.

2) In May 2012, the Department gave decision-makers two options: to continue converting to the carrier variant, or revert to the STOVL variant. The Department did not present further options because it had not changed its view on the capability advantages of the Joint Strike Fighter variant options over alternative, cheaper but non-stealth aircraft. Similarly, it still believed that the alternative steam-based catapult and arrestor gear was not a viable option.

3) The purpose of the phase was to understand the risks and costs associated with
converting a carrier to operate the carrier variant aircraft by installing catapults and
arrestor gear.

etc, etc for about ten more mentions.

Basically, ctrl+f "conversion development phase" and read the three points plus the next section. It explains that they did the study, and found that EMALS was too big a tech risk, would cost a fuckton more, would take 3 more years, international CATOBAR interoperability was a myth.

Now you ask, if EMALS was such a problem why not just use steam cats? Non-nuclear. Even with EMALS a lot of the extra cost was sunk in tripling on board ship power generator capacity.

You should reread your source and re-evaluate your position on the matter.

>>31357752
>Cole went into a hostile port in a hostile country and wasn't allowed to defend itself.
So now we're leaving the AO entirely to refuel every couple weeks, then coming back. What do you think that does to on-station time for a six-month deployment? Keep in mind how much more fuel you burn running CATOBAR systems, how much more energy has to be expended.

>>31357879
How do you feel about getting Link 16 soon? Hypothetically with that and full carriage of the AIM-120C/D coming to Harriers, Harriers could provide valuable back-up to other fighters.

>>31357983
EMALS eliminates the miles of steam piping and associated maintenance and crew hazards. Plus its easier to tune for optimum launch.

File: 1458434518257.jpg (166KB, 1065x1190px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1065x1190px

>>31357856
It. Is. Not. A. Fucking. Carrier. You. Fucking. Dipshit.

>>31357983
>international CATOBAR interoperability was a myth.

Is it? I thought the Rafale and Super Hornet could operate off of eachother's carriers.

>>31358018
>EMALS eliminates the miles of steam piping and associated maintenance and crew hazards. Plus its easier to tune for optimum launch.
Yes. It still requires fucktons of power, though. Not as much energy overall as steam, but if you actually read your source you'll see it mentions heavy and extensive engineering room redesigns required to install the necessary power for it.

>>31358033
And hey, there's already a nuclear reactor, the most efficient, highest output:size power plant in existence, powering everything!

>>31358027
>Is it? I thought the Rafale and Super Hornet could operate off of eachother's carriers.
Only for emergency fuel. Munitions is a whole other problem. Neither the UK, France nor USN have completely compatible naval aviation munitions magazines on operational carriers for loading up naval fighters. That was the main issue. Yes, it can take off and land with a fair bit of extra pilot training, and it can take fuel, but it can't be armed. Furthermore, it can't get maintained without a full section of air wing personnel and a shit ton of gear and parts flown in.

It's nowhere near worth it. It'd cost less to just operate from a nearby land base and take aerial refueling to get there.

>>31358054
>And hey, there's already a nuclear reactor, the most efficient, highest output:size power plant in existence, powering everything!
Obviously. I was responding to the concept anon above posted that nuclear is somehow not preferable for a modern CATOBAR carrier. Try to keep up.

>>31357983
Shit. Forgot to cite the link:
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/10149-001-Carrier.full-report.pdf

>>31358022

It does not need a well dock. It can deploy marines via Osprey. Omitting the well dock provides room for expanded aviation facilities. All future LHA's should follow this philosophy.

File: homer-beer.jpg (41KB, 360x256px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 360x256px

>>31358121
>Amphibious military-in-a-box doesn't need to do beach landings, especially with their armor and vehicles it would take several trips to deploy by sling load

>>31354263
>Thrust Vectoring is a nice technique that can help with faster takeoff and other tricks but its just something that all our fighters should have at this point.
Thrust vectoring is fucking worthless in actual combat use, they don't even really use it on the F-22 outside of a few airshow tricks.

Your whole post was full of utter fail and wrong.

File: The_Green_Bay_(LPD_20)_near_New_Orleans[1].jpg (1MB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2400px

>>31358157

That's what LPD's are for.

So you've got the LHA to provide air support and the LPD to land troops. Much better than trying to cram everything into one vessel.

>>31358121
Without a well deck it can't deploy vehicles via landing craft or deploy AAVs.

>>31358157
Osprey can't deploy most vehicles by sling load anyways. The sling maxes out at 7.5 tons. Not enough to carry a 30 ton AAV, and certainly not enough to carry a 60 ton Abrams.

>>31358121
First of all, for the fucking retard one more time, IT IS NOT A CARRIER. IT IS A FUCKING LHA. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GODDAMN MISSION. LEARN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

Secondly, the first two Americas do not need the well deck because they are specifically focused on air assault against land-locked countries, like what happened with Afghanistan, where all the well decks were more or less dead weight. Now the USMC MEUs have an option for dickpunching Switzerland, Luxemborg, Rwanda, Mongolia, Nepal, etc, etc, etc with maximum efficiency. Dickpunching is good.

Thirdly, the primary LHD/LHA mission will always be assault, and the most efficient way of getting forces ashore will always be on the water. It can move men and materiel ten times as fast this way compared to just Ospreys, which can't even get Armor ashore. So, yes, the rest of the Americas fucking well DO need well decks, you ignorant bag of flaccid gangrenous cocks.

Fourth, you're ignorant, refuse to learn what the purpose of the systems you're commenting on actually is, keep running your cockholster when no one wants to fucking hear from the retard section anymore and are generally just a shitbag. We all hope you fuck off and either contract a horrific disease that requires amputation of your hands, or, God forbid, that you get sick of being a worthless sack of flaming dog turds and fucking educate yourself at a basic level before opening your goddamn pud socket on a subject.

That is all.

>>31358188
>That's what LPD's are for.
>Much better than trying to cram everything into one vessel.
You see what you fucking did there? DO YOU SEE IT?

YOU CAN'T FUCKING FIT HALF THE GEAR AN MEU NEEDS ON A GODDAMN LPD, YOU LIMP WRISTED SHIT SWIZZLER.

So what now? No well decks on a Americas but we'll suddenly have all the magic la-la money we want to more than double the numbers of LPDs we have to operate? Because Congress just fucking LOVES funding the Marines, amirite?

>>31358188
To make up for the lack of a well deck on the LHD, you'd need at least one additional LPD, more likely 2. So building 2 more San Antonios for each America class seems cost efficient to you?

File: 1458451863480.jpg (15KB, 374x378px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 374x378px

>>31358241
>IT IS NOT A CARRIER. IT IS A FUCKING LHA. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GODDAMN MISSION. LEARN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.
>Now the USMC MEUs have an option for dickpunching Switzerland, Luxemborg, Rwanda, Mongolia, Nepal, etc, etc, etc with maximum efficiency. Dickpunching is good.
>So, yes, the rest of the Americas fucking well DO need well decks, you ignorant bag of flaccid gangrenous cocks.
>Fourth, you're ignorant, refuse to learn what the purpose of the systems you're commenting on actually is, keep running your cockholster when no one wants to fucking hear from the retard section anymore and are generally just a shitbag. We all hope you fuck off and either contract a horrific disease that requires amputation of your hands, or, God forbid, that you get sick of being a worthless sack of flaming dog turds and fucking educate yourself at a basic level before opening your goddamn pud socket on a subject.
>>31358275
>YOU CAN'T FUCKING FIT HALF THE GEAR AN MEU NEEDS ON A GODDAMN LPD, YOU LIMP WRISTED SHIT SWIZZLER.
I love it when this anon really gets going.

anyone got the screen caps of his other naval thread rants?

File: lpd19-san-antonio-class-drawing[1].jpg (110KB, 855x635px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 855x635px

>>31358225

>Without a well deck it can't deploy vehicles via landing craft or deploy AAVs.

Damn.

If only there was some kind of ship designed specifically for doing that kind of thing.

>Pic-related

>>31358241
>>31358275

It is best when each vessel has a designated purpose. So you have a helicopter carrier (with no well deck) that provides CAS for ground troops. This would ideally look something like the America-class, but probably a little smaller.

Next you have the LPD, which is purpose-built for moving large numbers of troops and equipment ashore via amphibious vehicles.

You'd have tank landing ships (LST) which compliment the LPD by helping to deliver tanks and other heavy vehicles. This is something the Navy is currently missing.

>>31358296

>To make up for the lack of a well deck on the LHD, you'd need at least one additional LPD

No objections.

File: Many missions and a big swinging dick for every goddamn one.jpg (902KB, 2000x1054px) Image search: [Google]

902KB, 2000x1054px

>>31358472
>It is best when each vessel has a designated purpose.
[citation fucking needed, see pic goddamn related]

>So you have a helicopter carrier (with no well deck) that provides CAS for ground troops.
That's only a small part of what a fucking America does, dumbass.
-protected staging area
-MEU C4SIR primary command node
-troop transport
-heavy equipment transport
-combat hospital
-attack, transport and utility rotary wing aircraft airbase
-fixed wing airbase for CAS/interdiction/strike/CAP/etc.
-major supply node for forces on the ground
STOP POSTING AND EDUCATE YOUR SHIT-STUPID ASS

>Next you have the LPD, which is purpose-built for moving large numbers of troops and equipment ashore via amphibious vehicles.
Not goddamn big enough by a long shot, and what the fuck else do you do with ALL THE OTHER FUCKING MISSIONS AN AMERICA CLASS DOES?! Jesus fucking christ.

>This is something the Navy is currently missing.
Why do you think that is? Hu? DID YOU BOTHER TO READ A GODDAMN THING ABOUT HOW AN MEU WORKS? ONE FUCKING THING?

See, we have these things now called LCACs. You should read about them. Maybe because they're the primary fucking well deck payload vehicles on San Antonios, WHICH YOU WOULD FUCKING WELL KNOW IF YOU'D SO MUCH AS READ THE GODDAMN WIKI ARTICLE, MUCH LESS AN ACTUAL FUCKING BOOK. I'VE MET GODDAMN EARTH WORMS WITH MORE AWARENESS OF BASIC AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL REALITIES.

>No objections.
Oh, well I'm so fucking glad YOU don't have any fucking objections. I'm completely fucking satisfied that YOU'RE on board, since you have TOTAL FUCKING CONTROL OVER GETTING CONGRESS TO BUY US ANOTHER DOZEN SAN ANTONIOS.

Fucking ignorant goddamn drip down babies, I swear to christ.

>>31358656

I honestly don't know why this is being treated with such hostility. This wasn't my idea. The America-class is being built without well-decks. And yes, I know that most of them will have well decks, but it is still a step in the right direction.

>>31358713
>I honestly don't know why this is being treated with such hostility.
When you say stupid shit after never bothering to goddamn learn about something while shitting your opinions all over the fucking place like an incontinent fucking puppy, guess what? Eventually, you're going to piss people off.

People ITT gave you every goddamn reason to read deeper and learn something about the topic. But nooooooo, you had to keep repeating the same inane fucking bullshit ad fucking nauseum. Now you want to cry about people picking on poor little you? GO FUCK YOURSELF.

>but it is still a step in the right direction.
You literally don't even know where an LHD/LHA mission starts or ends, so why the fuck should anyone on this entire goddamn planet give a wet shit in a hurricane for whether or not your think it's fucking well going in the right direction? Hu? Because you're a special fucking snowflake who can't be fucked to so much as read a goddamn wiki page? Because your voice fucking matters?

SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU FUCKING KNOW SOMETHING.

File: america-010[1].jpg (272KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1200x900px

>>31358826

It's funny. You're saying all this but you can't change the fact that the America doesn't have a well deck. Nor will the Tripoli.

You are aware of this right? It's not some abstraction that I came up with. It's a real thing. And it's glorious.

>>31358880
And the Navy and Marines figured out that's not sustainable and are fixing it on the Flight 1 version. These two are probably going to end up supporting carrier groups most of the time instead of leading ESGs by themselves.

Why do we need amphibs with well decks at all what purpose do they serve?

>>31358902
Jesus fucking Christ learn to fucking read. It's so you can fit an entire MAGTF in one ship and get first forces in place while the Army and Navy get set to follow in.

>>31358902

They allow for getting lots of dudes onto a beach quickly.

>>31358902
>Why do we need helicopters with passenger seats at all what purpose do they serve?

>>31358880
>It's funny. You're saying all this but you can't change the fact that the America doesn't have a well deck. Nor will the Tripoli.
>You are aware of this right? It's not some abstraction that I came up with. It's a real thing. And it's glorious.
Oi, fuckstain. Learn to fucking read. See >>31358241
>Secondly, the first two Americas do not need the well deck because they are specifically focused on air assault against land-locked countries, like what happened with Afghanistan, where all the well decks were more or less dead weight. Now the USMC MEUs have an option for dickpunching Switzerland, Luxemborg, Rwanda, Mongolia, Nepal, etc, etc, etc with maximum efficiency. Dickpunching is good.

Maybe if you could manage the reading comprehension of a fucking kindergartener, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO BEAT FACTS INTO YOUR WORTHLESS HEAD WITH A FUCKING BASEBALL BAT.

>>31358899
>And the Navy and Marines figured out that's not sustainable and are fixing it on the Flight 1 version.
Not even remotely accurate. All America class ships after Tripoli were always meant to have a well deck. The first two have always been meant to be specialized air assault ships.

>>31358948
No thats what LST's and other landing ships are for. This ferrying back and forth from over the horizon has never been tried irl and never will be.

>>31358941
Ok but in reality the first forces will always be airborne troops coming on planes, not marines.
These ships are far too expensive to be using them as shipping crates & ferries for marines.

>>31359004
>This ferrying back and forth from over the horizon has never been tried irl and never will be.
this fucking guy again. where the hell do all these idiots come from?

>>31359004
>Ok but in reality the first forces will always be airborne troops coming on planes, not marines. These ships are far too expensive to be using them as shipping crates & ferries for marines

>Mission they've explicitly been designed and trained for
>Won't happen
Ok dipshit.

>>31359004

>No thats what LST's and other landing ships are for.

But the Navy doesn't have any of those anymore.

>>31359004
>Ok but in reality the first forces will always be airborne troops coming on planes, not marines.
>These ships are far too expensive to be using them as shipping crates & ferries for marines.
see >>31358656
>That's only a small part of what a fucking America does, dumbass.
>-protected staging area
>-MEU C4SIR primary command node
>-troop transport
>-heavy equipment transport
>-combat hospital
>-attack, transport and utility rotary wing aircraft airbase
>-fixed wing airbase for CAS/interdiction/strike/CAP/etc.
>-major supply node for forces on the ground
Anon already laid it out for you in this thread. Why are you still posting?

>>31359027
Luckily the army maintains some capability, as they will always have to do the mission even if the other branches let the ability disappear.

File: Trijicon.jpg (243KB, 901x775px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 901x775px

>>31354030
>b-but our air-fields were never bombed!
>w-we didn't need to fight WW3, so it was w-worthless, right?

Well, I guess we'll never know.

>>31354030
>Be at Balad in 09
>Sandstorm at night
>Insurgents set up mortar almost right outside wire where towers can see
>Harrier takes off and drops a 500lbs JDAM on top of their dick heads
>Go up on roof to see the fire

yeah but the optics systems for the f-35 are amazing. the HMD tech can go right into other projects like bringing integrated digital vision systems to land forces (one reason why so much money is being thrown at it)

File: F35-helmet-2014-with-symbology-690x364.jpg (190KB, 690x364px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 690x364px

>>31359533
pic related. too bad about the only 40deg FOV.

File: Uss_iwo_jima_(LPH-2)_2.jpg (102KB, 766x499px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 766x499px

>>31358880
Why do we keep acting like no well deck is some bizarre experiment?

>>31359547
>too bad about the only 40deg FOV.
source?

>>31359691
For you ;)
https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Data/Products/Displays/Soldier_Displays/F-35_Gen_III_Helmet_Mounted_Display_System.aspx
look in the specifications window

File: view.jpg (41KB, 435x296px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 435x296px

>>31359730
So it is. Thankfully, that only cuts a small amount of peripheral vision, and peripheral vision is mostly motion cuing, not suitable for picking out distant objects. Pic related.

File: anglofview.jpg (107KB, 859x508px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 859x508px

>>31359547
>>31359730
A 40 degree field of view of something right in front of your face is breddy gud.

>>31354182
American carriers are great, it's the non-American carriers that are the problem.

>>31359785
>>31359784
Well... it's okay for now. Needs to get a whole lot better if we dont want people getting disoriented. And peripheral vision is what we evolved to survive, I'd say its pretty damn important.

>>31359832
>And peripheral vision is what we evolved to survive, I'd say its pretty damn important.
It's not like the peripheral vision is blocked, you can still see fine around the display. It's just not displayed over it. So your peripheral vision still warns you of things moving nearby (while flying in formation, for instance), while your detail field of view is covered by the display. Not a bad system, overall.

>>31359832
>And peripheral vision is what we evolved to survive, I'd say its pretty damn important.
That might be al well and good were we still neanderthals roaming across the plains hunting mastodons and worrying about saber tooth tigers jumping us from our blind spots, but an active, interactive, and intuitive heads up display that actively engages our attention and relays key relevant combat and operations data of the surrounding airspace is far superior.

>>31360168
>>31359864
H-how many of you are there??

>>31359832
Part of the reason for not having a ~200 degree FOV mind you is so that the pilot has peripheral view of their cockpit.

I don't know about you guys, but I have a 24" 1920x1200 monitor for my main PC display and my eyes are generally 80cm away it. Doing the math, that means that I game, etc through a ~36 degree FOV display.

Also for what it's worth, the JHMCS (which pilots love) only has a circular FOV of 20 degrees and modern NVGs as used in tactical aviation only have FOVs of about 40 deg, with the pilot having less / no natural peripheral vision.

>>31360185
>H-how many of you are there??
IF you mean reasonably intelligent open minded people that can actually speculate on possibilities beyond our personal and limited field of experience. More than a few.

>>31360188
Okay... but I want cool full hmd helmets man

>>31360212
why does everyone on this board feel the need to
>retype everything in green text
I know the context that you're replying in, thank you

>inb4 "why does everyone on this board feel the need to retype everything" followed by affected reply

File: 1e4003b0e215d928593879148d23773a530467fe_hq[1].gif (964KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 500x281px

>>31360222
>Just the HMD

>>31360245
>why does everyone on this board feel the need to
In this case?Just to trigger you.

>>31360185
It is one anon.

>>31360340
You and every other anon in this thread (also me too) is the same person; you just have split personality disorder.

>>31360389
Good thing I wasn't talking about the thread, just two posts.

>>31360245
>why does everyone on this board feel the need to
>So newfag he doesn't know you can quote just by highlighting and clicking on the post

>>31356633
>The Gerald Ford costs 10.5 billion.
>So for the price of 4 America-class carriers, you could get 2 Izumo-class carriers plus 1 addition Gerald Ford. So you get two helicopter carriers each capable of launching a sizeable air assault plus a massive super-carrier capable of easily supporting marines with fixed-wing CAS.

How many Queen Elizabeth carriers could you get for that?

>>31360687
Nevermind that Izumo are do not have facilities to house infantry and their equipment.

>>31360687

>How many Queen Elizabeth carriers could you get for that?

(Not who you were talking to)

Maybe around three, but the QE class fits a different set of requirements to what the USN and USMC has.

It cannot operate more capable CATOBAR aircraft like the CVNs, nor can it function as an amphibious assault ship like the LHAs.

The RN was willing to compromise with the QE to retain a fixed wing carrier capability with reasonable mission availability, and with low operating costs for the duties expected of it. The USN does not need to make these compromises, so does not need a ship like the QE class.

>>31354369
>RN naval doctrine relies upon using anti-submarine helicopter carriers if cold war goes hot
>But hey, let's keep this ancient WW2-era CATOBAR carrier capable only of using F-4s in service just in case a tiny island in the atlantic gets invaded by a tin-pot dictatorship instead of simply using an existing STOVL fighter on our existing carriers
>It's not like the current government isn't starting a massive scheme or spending cuts or anything

congrats f@m you're a mong

>>31360941
>Maybe around three,

QE is over 6b now ...

>>31356156
>they could have had CATOBAR easily

At the cost of only having a single carrier (effectively meaning that half the time it'll be in port like the good old Charles De Meme)

>>31359655
Related question: what distinguishes an LPH from an LHA?

>>31361531

That £6.2 bn is for both carriers, so around £3.1 bn each.

>>31357983

I gave you three key words for you to search, you found a single study which didn't discuss what we're discussing and you tell me to "You should reread your source and re-evaluate your position on the matter."

imao the cheek

>Now you ask, if EMALS was such a problem why not just use steam cats? Non-nuclear. Even with EMALS a lot of the extra cost was sunk in tripling on board ship power generator capacity.

Because:

>By February 2012, the Department’s conversion cost estimate had increased by 150 per cent, from £800 million to about £2 billion. These estimates were based on the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). The most significant cost increases occurred in late 2011 and early 2012, as the US provided updated information. The increases occurred after the Department had selected, in March 2011, the EMALS system over the steam-based system, which it estimated to cost £500 million. This steam-based estimate would probably also have increased, but the Department did not continue to develop it because it judged that EMALS offered a flexible, advanced capability with lower fatigue on aircraft launched; and that the steam option, due to obsolescence and integration issues, was not a viable alternative (paragraphs 1.5 to 1.9 and Figures 2 and3).

>The Department was more certain of the costs of steam-catapult technology which was well established, reliable and the risks were well understood. This technology provided the basis for the Department’s lower cost estimate of £500 million. It would, however, have become obsolete during the life of the carriers. The production of steam to power the mechanism would also have required additional equipment being fitted on the carriers making installation more intrusive on the carrier infrastructure which could have led to an increase in the Department’s cost estimate.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/10149-001-Carrier.full-report.pdf

>>31358080
>Obviously. I was responding to the concept anon above posted that nuclear is somehow not preferable for a modern CATOBAR carrier. Try to keep up.

I have only asserted that for the British forces, they found it preferable. People need to stop with these retard tier generalisations. I have never suggested that it would be preferable option for all other carrier navies.

>>31354391
faggot

File: 1472262034408.png (1MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x720px

>>31355224

>There are absolutely no compromises involved with STOVL
>But the guy in charge of the program says.....
>He just doesn't want the next fighter to be compromised!
>So there are compromises?
>Yes, but they only apply to Air Superiority fighters, multiroles are magically immune to compromises from STOVL.

>>31362266
See, here's the thing, the F-35B loses some range and payload, but that's all. It's still a massive upgrade in every metric over the Harrier.

The STOVL system fits neatly into what is fuel space on the A/C variants. And was easy enough to build that it was fully functional in the X-35 while Boeing could barely get their system to work at all.

>>31362266
The guy in charge of the program never said the F-35 was compromised, you are inserting your own narrative.

>>31359004
The Navy has declared LSTs obsolete and has zero.

>>31362503
>>31362735

Look, having a common cockpit layout, common avionics, radar, and a common engine for all three version was a good idea.

The problem was when you try to make the entire airframe 80% common for all three versions. That just doesn't work, and the fact that the three versions only have about 20% commonality now is proof of that.

Now I know you guys keep harping for some kind of official source even though it is really self-evident at this point. But will you accept RAND as a source?

http://www.rand.org/blog/2015/03/where-commonality-can-work-in-a-sixth-gen-fighter.html

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1225.html

The RAND corporation which does research for the DOD has concluded that Joint programs like the JSF do not save money. In fact, they are often more expensive than just having a separate program for each thing. Now before you get all fired up, no I am not saying that all commonality is bad. I'm saying that if you push it too hard, it becomes a bad thing that causes delays and cost overruns which RAND agrees with.

Selected Quotes:

>Under none of the plausible conditions analyzed did Joint Strike Fighter have a lower Life Cycle Cost estimate than three notional equivalent single-service programs.

>Diverse service requirements and operating environments work against the potential for joint cost savings, which depends on maximum commonality, and are a major contributor to the joint acquisition cost-growth premium identified in this cost analysis.

>Unless the participating services have identical, stable requirements, the U.S. Department of Defense should avoid future joint fighter and other complex joint aircraft development programs.