USS America

>>31789619
>cancelled

It's not though, they're just adding a well deck to it for the future ones after Tripoli.

>>31789637
The whole point of the America class was to have a larger capacity hanger for parts, fuel and everything else needed for increased aviation operations.
Realising they made a huge mistake they've changed the design for LHA-8 and onwards.
>Welldeck
>Skiramp
Pick at least one, if not both.
But neither? What's the point.

>>31789666

>poverty ramp
>on American designs

NOPE

NOT EVEN ONCE

>>31789619
>Not a real assault ship
LPH-1 though -12 didn't have well decks, they did far more amphibious assaulting than the Tarawa and Wasp classes ever did.

>>31789681
Absolutely!
But if you're not a fleet carrier and you don't have room for cats like an assault ship doesn't AND you're trying to maximise range, weapon loadout of stovl craft why wouldn't you include a ramp?

>>31789666
It doesn't have a ski-ramp because it's main form of amphibious assault is via the V-22, and the ramp would take up several helicopter landing spots.

Whether or not that's worth it is a different question, but there is logic behind it.

>>31789666
In your mind your narrative makes sense.

File: KfucOsR.png (783KB, 802x523px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 802x523px

>>31789666

>Ramp
>On a helicopter carrier

>>31789735
The main benefit the ramp gives is allowing a 150ft shorter take-off distance than on Wasps and Americas. As far as range goes I doubt it actually makes any difference, they'll both be carrying full fuel. It probably allows it to carry more of an external payload, but that's of limited utility with the F-35.

>>31789813
So who is right and who is wrong?
The designers of USS America or the designers of HMS Queen Elizabeth?
Should QE have been designed as a no ramp carrier even without catapults?
>inb4 she should have been nuclear with cats.

>>31790076
They have different design goals. The America is designed to head an ESG, the F-35s are only there for supporting that mission. The QE has a role more analogous to that of a Nimitz.

>>31789681
>poverty ramp
ok, i kek'ed a bit on that one

>>31790076

You realize that the Queen Elizabeth and the America are intended for different purposes yes? The America is made specifically for amphibious operations. It needs the deck space for helicopters, and a ramp reduces the number of available helicopter landing spots. On the other hand, the Queen Elizabeth is much bigger and so giving up a bit of deck space for a ramp isn't a big sacrifice at all.

>>31789813
>Ramp of Poverty
>US Carrier Doctrine
Pick one.

>>31789637
They canceled the variant. Not the class.

>>31789681
2nd world planes can't just take off. They have to jump from a high place.

>>31790686

You realize ramps are fucking ugly and only used on ships too small for cats, right?

We need dem kitties

>>31791229
The CdG is smaller than the America in some ways (it's slightly longer however) and has cats.

>>31791229
>You realize ramps are fucking ugly and only used on ships too small for cats, right?

hurrr

>>31789738
Guess that kinda makes sense.

Fuck ramps. I never want to see one on a US Navy ship even if they might help their mission roles.

>>31790116

QEs have a higher emphasis on troop deployment etc. They're a bit more of an all-rounder as far as I know.

>>31789813
Oh imagine the sheer amount of butthurt that will be on /k/ if they add a ramp to the future ships

>>31792061

It would be delicious. Honestly, who knows the USMC might get a taste for ramps once they operate on the QEs.

>>31792061
But ramps dont fit in with the US Carrier doctrine of, Deck space best space

I will see our taxes raised 80% to build 20 Americas built with no ramp than have our fleet reduced to Somali pirate tier aesthetics. Fuck the cost we will not deliver freedom to sand nations from a fucking ramp.

>>31789619
There's nothing wrong with it.

It revealed the secret fact that the Marines have no reason to exist.

File: wheel-chocks-1912-in-use-2.jpg (77KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x600px

why cant helicopters land on a ski jump?

You're telling me no helicopter has ever landed on but perpendicular to an incline?

>>31792673
>perpendicular

I'm not sure you know what this word means.

>>31792780
ok
...landed on a ski jump with the front of the helicopter pointed perpendicular to the *typical* direction of takeoff from the ski jump. in the horizontal plane which is parallel to all tangents of the earth at that exact point.

>>31789666
No, that isn't the whole point of the class. The plan was to do this from the get go. But enjoy your little narrative.

#armatabesttank

>>31792673

>why cant helicopters land on a ski jump?

Because they'll tip over.

>>31792673
Wind fluctuates the rotors, with an added ramp angle, personnel are now at decapitation height. Congrats.

>>31790891
Most of the US allies are flying either the Harrier or the f-35b from their carriers though.

>>31789619

>A floating contradiction named after America.

You are surprised?

>>31792232

>%80

Wow. I call bullshit.

The only way I can justify a ski ramp is on one of those concept 8000 ton harrier carriers.

Even WW2 escort carriers didn't need a damn ramp.

Having flat real estate on deck is worth more than having a ramp.

>>31790865
No, they didn't "cancel" the variant. They planned on building 2 of that subclass and that's exactly what they are doing before adding the well deck back in.

>>31792061
It's too bad there isn't a design for a retractable ramp that could fold down and be flat as to allow the full number of helicopter landing spots and be brought up for f-35B takeoffs.

>>31795549

It would go from 0 degrees to 9 degrees with no slope, though.

That might wreck landing gear or fuck up a planes nose.

The inclination changes too suddenly.

I imagine it could be tested, but you couldn't call it a ramp or a slope because it would be neither.

And no way in hell are we gonna see catapult technology be able to follow a change that drastic anytime soon. I might be talking out my ass, cause I am by no means an expert, but IMO it sounds good on paper but looks bad for the real world.

I've got no clue it's actually feasible because I'm ignorant of our technical limitations.

>>31795609
I don't mean a straight ramp that is a that is just a flat, diagonal section. It would have to be sectional to create a smooth curve. Interesting concept in theory but likely not worth the engineering that would have to go into it.

>>31789666
Nice try Satan, but the reason they can't do a ramp is because the Osprey does rolling take offs from the deck which would be impossible to do if they added a skiramp.

>>31795494
>Even WW2 escort carriers didn't need a damn ramp.

Most WW2 planes would probably fall apart if they tried to take off from a ramp due to the increased stress on the airframe.

>>31789619
Why are the marines so desperate to become a sea going 101st airborne is what you should be asking.

>>31795836

Those planes could take dozens of hits that would down a modern plane.

They were not fragile.

>>31795907
Only because their armor was so thin that enemy round would go clean through without fragmenting. Some of these planes were literally made of canvas and paper. They are the definition of fragile.

>>31789619
>At 50,000 tonnes as big as the CdG or other nations fleet carriers yet no ramp to support the superior numbers of F-35b's it can carry..
>Ramp
Why not a single catapult and a handful of EF-18 ?

>>31795928
A single catapult generates a lower sortie rate than a single ramp (or flat takeoff lane). Catapults are only worth it if you do 2 or more.

>>31795928
Because she is having an identity crisis and needs to fly craft that can be moved to onshore bases with limited run way

>>31795928
Also, it doesn't have arresting gear or a diagonal landing runway.

>>31795928
Because part of the ships point of existing is to be the perfect candidate to have a ramp, and then not have one because ramps are stupid looking, as a gigantic insult to ramp using nerds.

File: IMG_8157.jpg (119KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 800x450px

>>31795956
So what's the explanation behind pic related?

Amphibious assault ships are a meme and have never actually been used, nor ever actually WILL be used.

>>31796172
That's not true. Uss America was actually used to great effect in operation Iraqi freedom.
Where she took on 20 jets and was used as a mini carrier, where a skiramp would have been really handy

>>31796172
What was the falklands war?

>>31789666
>Realising they made a huge mistake they've changed the design for LHA-8 and onwards.

It had more to do with the USMC and USN going OMG ASHMS ARE SCARY WE CAN'T LET ANYTHING EVEN GET IN RANGE! So the easiest way around that is to change from amphibious craft to aircraft with greater ranges.

Then people who weren't retarded got into power and went 'How the fuck do you plan on getting any heavy equipment to the fight if you move everything by helicopter? Did none of you think this through?'

>>31796628
>Not using half a dozen Ospreys to carry your tank to the battlefield like something straight out of a movie

>>31796680
> install catapults
> install ski ramp
Launch tanks to the battlefront

>>31789619
It'd be funny if say China, named their ship "China"
>fatniks gunna fat

>>31789619
We could save deck space by towing planes into the sky from a plane already flying.

>>31797718
Make them attack gliders and you've got yourself an idea.

A flat top commercial ship could hold dozens of cargo gliders, and a C-130 could snatch them into the air

For the heavy vehicles, we need to bring back LST + coastal monitors to do fire support

>>31796571
If you are doing that you might as well go the whole way & buy fullsized super carriers.

Could very easily run them on conventional fuels instead of nuclear to save costs.

Wasn't the whole point of this thing to fit as many helicopters/Ospreys as possible on something of reasonable size?

Isn't that exactly what it does?

>>31790891

I see you memeing. I'm pretty memelord myself

>US planes so fat they need a catapult to get moving.

>>31797047
Everybody's had a ship named after their own country. Germany had the Deutschland in WW2 and Britain had HMS Britannia at some point.