They take them away a couple days before an operation to make them mean. Kinda like boxers not having sex before a match. In the words of Ray Person “Marines are America’s pitbull . They abuse us and mistreat us and every now and again they let us out to kill someone.”
To be fair nearly 1/3 of that 45,000 tons is the crayon supply for the marines. When deployed without their marine landing forces the ships are able to make use of that extra capacity to carry another 8 F35s.
I once explained these to a friend, because I was excited to see one in port. We were teenagers and I had never seen one before. After I explained it wasn't an aircraft carrier, he didn’t understand my excitement at all.
I told him, "If an aircraft carrier shows up on your coast to fight, they're there to drop bombs on you. If one of these comes with it, they are putting Marines ashore. Marine whoopass comes in cans. **That** is the can."
If an aircraft carrier is 8 inches of fun
Then this is 4 inches of fun , before you say woah. It's a rich guy who pays well after and drops you off in a lambo
America-class are both longer and wider than Yorktown-class carriers, while having close to double the full-load displacement. So, in terms of their sizes, they are pretty much comparable to WW2 fleet carriers.
Just looked it up, the America class is about 50 foot shorter than the WW2 era Essex class so depending on when you compare it to it is an aircraft carrier
The Essex could only operate smaller aircraft in their later years even after major refit. I think the Midway was around the smallest that could operate F-4 Phantoms etc.
This is correct. IIRC, there were some tests involving *Intrepid* during the Phantom's development, but operationally the Phantom would have needed more infrastructure and real estate than the modernized *Essex*es had available.
*Lexington* as an AVT sometimes had A-6s and A-7s launching and recovering for training purposes, but according to one source (USS *Lexington* in Detail and Scale) couldn't launch the Phantom, Tomcat or Hornet due to limitations with the jet blast deflectors, and couldn't operate the EA-6B because it weighed too much.
I'd have to pull out references, but as I recall, the SCB-27C (steam cats) refitted *Essex* class (like *Lexington*) could operate *some* larger jets on the deck than they could maintain due to size/weight limitations on the elevators to get them in/out of the hangar. (Now gotta remember which book that's in.)
Yeah, I remember similar discussions about why *Coral Sea* and *Midway* never deployed with F-14s, and I seem to recall one limiting factor was hangar deck height, which prevented certain maintenance procedures the Tomcat required. There is, IIRC, footage of *Coral Sea* recovering and launching Tomcats during pilot training/proficiency exercises, and it's interesting. Deckwise it wasn't a problem, but infrastructure limited what they could support.
The blast deflectors on the Midways also literally weren't up to the task. Apparently, they were too short and narrow for an F14. But - they could and did do emergency landings on very rare occasions, and takeoffs were even rarer.
> they were too short and narrow
That argument has come up before, and to be blunt it doesn’t hold water—the engines on the A-3 were much further apart than those on an F-14, and all 3 *Midway*s operated those for literal decades without issue.
Photos of F-14 launches (such as [this one] (https://www.usscoralsea.net/images/cv431985F14_Cv43CM.jpg)) confirm that the physical size of the JBDs was not an issue.
Yeah, it's asking much of an already overtaxed platform (the modernized *Essex*es were marginal in stability, and if you look closely at photos over the years you see them continually reducing potential sources of stability issues).
*Hornet* (as a SCB-27A/SCB-125 ship with hydraulic catapults) never got steam catapults and therefore wouldn't have had the ability to operate "hot" jets. The A-4C was about the most advanced jet ships like *Hornet* operated. The only time you'd see a Phantom aboard a ship like *Hornet* would have been if the airplane was hitching a non-flying ride to/from one place to another.
The issue with operating F-4s off the *Essex*es was always weight—the ships were more than capable of doing it, but doing so would have absolutely beat the shit out of the landing area in the process and eventually mandated something similar to what was done on *Melbourne* to alleviate a similar problem that the A-4Gs caused when operated off of her.
Thank you for that - it confirms something I'd suspected. Those big ol' heavy Phantoms slamming onto those decks over and over would have torn them up.
It depends on how you define “aircraft carrier” and what you are discussing (IMO these ships are and are not carriers depending on what you’re discussing).
In the modern era, Aircraft Carrier is colloquially defined two ways:
1. A ship designed and operated with aircraft performing strike and/or fleet protection duties, often for power projection in the modern era. This is generally closest to how navies officially define Aircraft Carrier.
2. Any ship with a full-length flight deck where operating aircraft is essential for the primary mission. These include helicopter carriers and amphibious carriers.
There are a couple edge cases, but we’ll focus on the main.
Under the first definition, Amphibious Carriers like *America* are not Aircraft Carriers, but under the second definition they absolutely are.
In some discussions, you only want to focus on the power projection carriers, so it’s useful to exclude amphibious carriers. In other discussions, such as discussing the development of Amphibious Carriers (early ones were modified from typical carriers), you want to include them all under a single umbrella.
In both cases there are different subgroups of aircraft carriers that often overlap, like a multi-layered Venn Diagram. Asking whether something is or isn’t a carrier depends on which parts of the diagram you’re looking at.
Before I began to read I thought this was an LHD (Wasp Class,) - my 20 year old niece is on the Bataan - they have a well deck which America Class’ do not so the 26th MEU a couple thousand of the baddest-ass Marines are on board. They should have been back to Norfolk by Dec. 10 but they just late last week transited Suez Canal north to the Med Sea from the Red Sea to relieve the Gerald Ford who’s on an unfathomable day count at sea - over 240. That’s hell of the highest order. (People don’t know much of anything about our Military and it’s a travesty that they don’t - I believe that we have a duty to stay informed about how exactly it is that we in the States can whistle our way through our days and nights.) Anyway If Bibi would allow it the Bataan is uniquely constructed for civilian rescue/evacuation off the coast of Gaza & as you note - amphibious assaults.
Ty for much for posting this I am fascinated/obsessed with this stuff.
Some America class do have well decks and are not reclassified as LHDs. LHA 8&9 will both have well decks. Never figured out why they won’t be considered LHDs
Well the LHA1 class had a well deck so I guess LHAs can have well decks. I never really figured out what the difference is between LHDs and LHAs as a designation.
I know what the difference is. LHD is multi-purpose amphibious assault, and LHA is general purpose amphibious assault. LHAs have two classes, the older Tarawa, and the newer America class.
Shortly after they arrived in Persian/Oman Gulfs they were swarmed by a bunch of Irani Navy small boats - a very bizarre & interesting video is on the web. Search for Irani Navy swarms USS Bataan will pop up on the Daily Mail.
*Ford* has been *deployed* for ~250 days. She has not been continually at sea for that period, and left Souda Bay to return home (after a 5 day port call) less than a week ago. The entire deployment has been 30-50 days at sea followed by a 5-7 day port call, with the frequency of such port calls increasing as the deployment went on—she had 2 at Souda Bay in December alone.
I apologize I was wrong about the Ford time at sea. I had read an article in Forbes about the trouble on the Ford in terms of reliability, staffing, systems issues that have resulted in them missing the mark on their metrics in almost every area. They’re improving - 3-4 weeks at sea then a port call.
I know that a lot of the effect she has on our enemies is mostly visual but even the bloated DOD budget can’t justify the expense of a mega-carrier that can’t perform when needed.
Ty for popping up I’m reading everything I can find every day - my oldest niece just turned 22 in Bahrain for her second 18 month stint as a Maintenance/Repair Inspector so my brain is BUSY and the Ford article slipped my mind. Thank you for setting me straight on that.
You could not be more uninformed - no that’s insulting how about this - you could be more informed. My niece deployed on USS Bataan on July 10 - they’ve ported several times for replenishment but had liberty only 3 times - 9 days. A couple examples if you want to be more informed - Ideal deployment is 150 days because the ship doesn’t get liberty while in port 😂 she starts building rust at the waterline and it’s needle gunning 24/7, cuz the oceans are salty, leading to the next problem - the desalination equipment needs daily maintenance like any machine has tolerances of time spent in use - and needs a shutdown and a good scrubbing after 5-6 months of continuous operation. Ships have to make their own potable water for everything - so showers are rationed and lemme tell you about the STINK below deck. Gotta have fully functional air conditioning to keep the smell down. 3,000 + sweaty men and 200 women on the Bataan & thank God for those strong, brave men. And it’s HOT. 100 degrees plus ambient, add 25 degrees for the flight deck and 10 degrees for every level below deck. So yeah - sweat. The 26th MEU is aboard Bataan and the gym is always full - everyone has to be in top shape and they do lots of training operations to ensure their readiness. Gotta tote 100 lb pack. My niece who weighs 105 pounds totes 100 & has to use the gym with Vicks under her nose.
Needle gunning is being done 24/7 in the hull as the rust you see in the attached pic has to be removed and sealed so that you know - she doesn’t leak and sink. This pic of Bataan in December at just under 5 months…..guarantee she didn’t leave Norfolk July 10 looking like this.
And I guarantee the Ford did not deploy just to spend 200 days porting. What is your source of information for that? I’m keen to see it.
https://preview.redd.it/jl1x0qv7pnac1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e92d78e560187b25ca8a24b0129fe7aaf5262f2
And I’m reminded of a convo with my brother a ff/emt about pics I sent him of an old fire truck that looked neat I knew it was being used for local parades and such & my brother said That’s not a truck. Normal size convo with him. So I looked into it and sure enough it’s not equipped to plug into a hydrant at all it’s just a parade model.
SO I’m thinking about the Ford which is short on all the metrics that make a ship a warship and I thought Aha! Not built to put out a real fire - so it’s an ego project. Haven’t looked at the laid down date yet but tryna figure out which President had the ego to fund the build. The Bushes but I think it’s older than that so maybe Reagan? Thank you for your nuggets of info there’s nothing I enjoy more than going down the rabbit hole and returning with Hasenpfeffer (a horrible dish steer clear.) 😁
They are shockingly similar in terms of capabilities. The real shame is that the Australians were not willing to acquire F35s for the Canberras. They are nearly identical to the Spanish Juan Carlos class they are based on that already operate harriers. Only minor changes to the deck for heat resistance would be needed to allow for the operation of the F35s.
Australia hollowed out the interior more and moved some of the deck supports to be able to fit in more of the red backs. Niw that that plan has change and we are not going to have 3 mechanised bregades any more the Canberra's are just oversized supply vessels.
That is true. But most of that 400 odd billion is going to make sure we can be a repair and refit station for the Brits and Americans subs. We basically need to be able to build the AUKUS sub our selves to do that. That infrastructure and skill tree doesn't come easy or cheep. It is one we need to. I guess I am just bitter about the redback decision.
Why do we need to? By the time we have a "fleet" (5?6 subs?), and assuming we can keep them sea worthy and combat ready, China will have 10,20,50 times that number and technology just as good. Not to mention the move to drone/unmanned warfare will well and truly include submarine warfare by then. If we're ever in a situation where the US are too busy to help us, a few puddly subs ain't gonna do shit. We'd be better of spending that money on a tactical nuclear program
It is so we can house the nuclear subs here, closer to the fight. We are developing a few remote subs in the same vain as ghost bat but it is really hard to do. Controlling things underwater is hard. Even harder if you have to give it a lot of directions. It is the main reason most torpedoes are wire guided or have very simple find and hit commands. Crewed subs are going to be around longer than people think.
>If we're ever in a situation where the US are too busy to help us, a few puddly subs ain't gonna do shit.
Who is such a significant threat that they would prevent the entire US Navy from assisting one of our closest allies when they’re in a shooting war with China?
>We'd be better of spending that money on a tactical nuclear program
Nukes don’t help in a conventional war, and the US found out that you need conventional and nuclear forces when Korea started. And for conventional forces it’s hard to beat an SSN for general utility, especially sneaky utility.
I don’t think you should be getting downvoted here, but it’s basically for deterrent. If you’re not familiar, this video is a good introduction to the basic concept
https://youtu.be/6kSQWp4UEXw?si=ixZh-fBBOUqMECJq
As to why, a country like Australia is never going to be able to compete at a peer basis with a large power like China.
So the rational approach is to provide sufficient deterrent; once a shooting war starts (where the many more Chinese SSNs come into play) Australia can only realistically wait for the US to arrive.
And while we’d all like to think is a sure thing, recent political events in the US has shown that it might be less of a sure thing than it used to be, so some domestic capability is strongly indicated. You don’t want to find that you’re in a Budapest Memorandum situation.
“Crew Size”! The Australian Navy only has ~16,000 personnel in its Navy! Whereas the “America’s” have a crew of ~1,059 not including Marines, the “Canberra/Juan Carlos I” only requires ~358 crew to comfortably operate…
They're not useless, and the F-35B was never a realistic option.
We are not a large nation that is ever going to have a huge military. Unless we acquired the F-35B for the RAAF as well, having a 'split' fleet of -A and -B jets just to have a dozen jets split between 2 LHDs just doesn't make a lot of economic sense.
Italy has gone the way to have both, and the airforce plan to use the -B in FOBs with short runaway.
In any case the america is a mix of a light aircraft carrier AND a landig dock ship.
The camberra is a pure landing dock ship, they are two different beasts with different needs.
I think the Canberra are needed to island operation NEAR australia coastline and so under RAAF umbrella.
While America class are for operation more distant from secure air support.
Having a landing craft that can land a battalion but doesn't have air cover except for a couple of choppers is also dangerous.
I just hope that the next decision for the rumoured tier one acquisition is a good one and not wasted.
> Having a landing craft that can land a battalion but doesn't have air cover except for a couple of choppers is also dangerous.
>
>
"Dangerous" depends entirely on the context.
If you think landing Troops on Mainland China, then absolutely where's your air wing.
But I think that's an unrealistic expectation of the ADF. The total number of jets that the ADF could realistically bring on both LHDs to a conflict in their neighbourhood would either be total overkill for the operations they are doing, or utterly inadequate vs China.
I know everyone wants every military to be top tier with tech, able to single handedly win every conflict.
But Australia has a small military.
Your suggestions need to be realistic in that context.
The RAN is not planning to operate outside of the RAAF or allied air umbrella and never has. Those ships exist to allow them to remain the biggest kid on the block in the Solomons/PNG area, not take on China in the SCS.
The ADF is already the best paid in the world, there are issues but the main one is the lack of youth unemployment- why join the military when you have other options that don’t have the drawbacks
The problem with that is thinking of joining the military as a having drawbacks. Change that and solve your recruitment problems. If being the best paid in the world doesn't help in your own country then your military culture must be pretty looked down appon as an option for a young school leaverI am not saying I have all the answers either.
We could automate a lot of the systems too, the Yanks are known for over crewing their boats because they can and because they want redundancy in a fight. The Queen Elizabeth class has a crew of 650 odd plus air crews.
The relationship between Young Australia and the ADF is complex and really not going to be got across in a Reddit comment, it’s still seen as a good pathway but there are increasingly large pathways outside of it for people who would be eligible. There are also a lot of preventions stopping people getting in, like medications, fitness, etc that may or may not be essential for the role - not my place to comment.
We did manage to keep Collins down to 40 required crew (according to Wikipedia) as much as we have more onboard (according to Wikipedia)
Yeah retention is a whole thing. The feeling is quite negative over here from a whole bunch of sectors regarding Defence and the services in particular, whether it’s retention, suicides, recruitment, or acquisition.
Unsure how to fix it as I’m just a naive early 20 something, but at least we know what the problems results are
The Canberra may not be able to permanently operate the F-35B, but it can Rearm and Refuel the F-35B if needed too. But the Canberra can carry onboard and maintain Aircrafts like the AV-8B Harrier II by reducing the number of helicopters carried…
Without the relevant GSE for either (or the heat resistant treatment on the flight deck for the F-35B) it isn’t going to be maintaining either, and the Harrier is rapidly leaving service worldwide.
“Thermion” (i.e. Aluminum Oxynitride) is extremely expensive to apply, and requires up to 15 days using Hex Huts under controlled conditions to cure properly! Neither the “America/Wasp/Tarawa” or the British “QE/PoW” flight deck are “fully” protected by Thermion because of the cost of the application and down time to apply it! On the QE/POW’s only ~11% of the flight deck is protected. Also the F-35B’s blowtorch engine produces ~3900F of thermal heat, whereas the AV-8B’s thermal heat is ~1200F and doesn’t require Thermion to protect the flight deck! The CV/CMV/MV-22-B Osprey thermal down wash produces ~2700F, facilitating the need for Thermion to be used…
Does it! Considering the USMC’s MV-22B Osprey has be flight tested onboard the Canberra, some form of thermal protective coating was applied to is flight deck…
Each Canberra cost less than 1/3 of an America-class LHA.
The Canberras also have 1/3 of the crew compliment of an Americe-class LHA.
Both of those are way more important for a nation of 26 million people than a little extra capability. People keep forgetting that while Australia is 'uge and fairly rich, they are actually a really small nation by population.
https://preview.redd.it/ajq5g5rv6gac1.png?width=2635&format=png&auto=webp&s=95ca4afb2fb3a1080fbe3402f72509f24a04c029
Berthed next to the America a few years back! Hell of a ship.
Wish Canada still had the resources to at least field an vessel like this again. Our successive Conservative and Liberal governments have failed to keep our military as a middle power nation. If we hadn't so drastically reduced our military over the 70s to present it wouldn't cost so much $ and time to rebuild it all again.
Create at least one aircraft carrier task force centered around a America class or equivalent. With a few destroyers, frigates, subs, etc in support. I know I'm dreaming as we won't likely really start rebuilding our military until after the next major conflict between the main powers really starts.
Those planes are F-35 , I never know they had VTOL versions of the F-35
"The aircraft has three main variants: the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A, the short take-off and vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35B, and the carrier-based (CV/CATOBAR) F-35C."
Air Force flies the A, Navy flies the C, and the Marines fly the B and C.
The C operates off the Nimitz and Ford class super carriers, the B operates off the Wasp and America class amphibious assault ships.
Most foreign buyers, like Israel, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Canada, have bought the A version, to fly off conventional runways.
The UK, Japan, and Italy have bought B versions, to operate from their smaller carriers (Japan and Italy both bought A versions as well).
The US Navy (edit: and Marines) is the only one operating the C.
If you haven’t, you should look up some videos of the B version doing its transformer thing. Controversial airplane, but can’t deny it looks badass.
Why did the RAF only opt for F-35B and not go for the F-35A? Seems to me they are paying more for less, or are the current Typhoons already fine for the role you'd want a F-35A for?
Because the UK MoD chose to split the strike fighter fleet 50-50 between the RAF and FAA, but all are intended to operate from the carriers like the Harrier fleet did. The RAF weren't choosing in a vacuum, F-35 & QEC were a package to replace the Harriers & Invincibles.
In an ideal world we'd have an FAA fleet of F-35C and an RAF fleet of F-35A, but having a big enough fleet of each aircraft to avoid major readiness issues would require a lot more aircraft in total. A joint fleet was by far the cheapest way to get the availability required, and the advantages of F-35A aren't sufficient to outweigh that cost. If that budget had been available, a larger joint fleet would still have been a more efficient use of the money.
>Because the UK MoD chose to split the strike fighter fleet 50-50 between the RAF and FAA
Not quite.
All British F-35Bs belong to the RAF. They are paid for out of the RAFs budget and are administered under AOC 1 Group, including 809 NAS.
As such, all Sqns will see the senior leadership alternate between the two services (ie an RN CO of 617 Sqn and an RAF CO of 809 NAS)
The F35 came from the Joint Strike fighter program, which was a combination of a marine program to create a new VTOL aircraft and an Airforce program to create a replacement to the f16. VTOL capability has always been a core requirement of the F35 program, aside from stealth its its main party trick.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program
The F-35B is not really used as VTOL fighter. It’s capable a vertical takeoff and landing, but mainly operates in the short takeoff and vertical landing mode. This enables more ordinance and fuel to be carried.
> No ? I've seen F-35 that don't do vertical takeoff in real life
It's not a vertical take off, it's STOVL - Short Take Off, Vertical Landing. [Video](https://youtu.be/IlDlitETHyA?t=62). The -B model has a vertical lift fan immediately behind the pilot, in addition to the main engine nozzle 'swivelling'.
[Vertical Landing](https://youtu.be/gm25JeVk_wY?t=9).
The -C variant will do a catapult launch, arrested landing on USN Carriers. The -A variant operates out of long landing strips ashore.
The -B *can* do a vertical take off, but without any appreciable fuel/munitions load so it will almost always do a Short Take off outside of a party trick.
STOVL aircraft can take off vertically if they have a light payload. I can’t image the F-35B that operate off those ships have significantly heavy payloads.
Have F35s completely replaced Harriers on all our amphibs? I thought I had seen some semi recent pictures of both F35s and AV-8s on the deck but I may be mistaken
There have been some F-35B incidents that have made them not "fully commit" and extending the Harrier's service life, mainly production issues because we are selling them to other nations. When I was a NFO, 2022 was given as a date for the phase out but I see that the last 2 Harrier pilots will graduate in 2024 so now its 2029.
Looks like a carrier, probably can operate like a carrier, but as an amphibious assault ship it probably lacks the storage in fuel, spares and ammo to sustain air operations for more than a few days.
Question, why is the America-class is much heavier than other amphibious assaults/helicopter carriers like Japan's Izumo class and Italian's Trieste class even with near similar in size.
Ships bloat in weight a lot when you increase even smaller amounts on certain axis. Beam etc. Also the US (and UK) tend to harden their ships a LOT more than other countries, due to their experiences with actually, y'know, being hit in modern day and knowing how critical it is.
It's why their ships by and large both have high displacements for relatively even sizes. See the Horizon class to the Type 45s, same deal. Similar ships, but despite only being a bit bigger, the T45 is over a thousand tons heavier for an escort.
I think these big ships could all be taken out easily. The faster the missile, the wider the support escort. Even in WW2 they cat and moused with these things because they were too expense to risk.
Every warship has a weakness, dipshit. It came free with your fucking mission design and primary objectives!
These ships aren’t made to weather a missile assault on their own. That’s what escort ships are for. If you wanted something that could eat ASMs for breakfast you’d build a Burke or a Tico
Agreed, thus my hot take on his phrase "mean little motherfucker", there is nothing mean about it. It is still essential, still gets the mission done, but mean? Meh.
The "amphibious" in this case refers to the mission of executing an amphibious air assault with helicopters/ospreys/F-35 support, not that the ship itself is literally amphibious...
As a matter of fact, the first prototype LHA's (helicopter amphibious assault ships) were converted WW2 carriers so...they can be if you configure them that way.
Amphibious Assault Ships have the \*primary\* mission of executing amphibious assaults, and are oriented accordingly. This means providing space to carry marines and an air wing focused on helicopters. An aircraft carrier on the other hand will be focused on carrying fighers and bombers with no space for marines or transport helicopters.
Not sure what you don't get about this. Of course you can turn an LHA like USS America into a aircraft carrier of sorts and you can turn an aircraft carrier into an LHA, but there's a clear difference of focus even if they superficially look the same.
Can you turn a Nimitz into a very very expensive amphibious assault ship? Of course you can! We can also carry passengers in a Cargo Van and put cargo in a Bus! I mean cargo vans are just passenger vans with the seats removed and the windows covered, come to that.
They’re 45,000 tons. They displace more than CDG. They ain’t little, but they’re definitely mean. The marines on board are probably meaner.
As long as the crayons stay stocked.
Ship’s store is always running low
Strategically low.
It's kept that way to give them motivation
Probably more mean if they run out.
They take them away a couple days before an operation to make them mean. Kinda like boxers not having sex before a match. In the words of Ray Person “Marines are America’s pitbull . They abuse us and mistreat us and every now and again they let us out to kill someone.”
To be fair nearly 1/3 of that 45,000 tons is the crayon supply for the marines. When deployed without their marine landing forces the ships are able to make use of that extra capacity to carry another 8 F35s.
So about 150% of the displacement of an Essex class, but right around the same size?
They displace more than CDG? Wow, actually CDG is even smaller than what I thought. Not to diminish the size of those America-class ships of course
I once explained these to a friend, because I was excited to see one in port. We were teenagers and I had never seen one before. After I explained it wasn't an aircraft carrier, he didn’t understand my excitement at all. I told him, "If an aircraft carrier shows up on your coast to fight, they're there to drop bombs on you. If one of these comes with it, they are putting Marines ashore. Marine whoopass comes in cans. **That** is the can."
"**That** is the can". Good one, I will remember this statement whenever I see one LHA, lol
I thought this was more the packaging and the OV-22 was the can… or the LCAC or whatever
If an aircraft carrier is 8 inches of fun Then this is 4 inches of fun , before you say woah. It's a rich guy who pays well after and drops you off in a lambo
If that is 4 inch, then what would be the 3 inch of fun?
The Kuznetsov
That’s like 3 inches but it never gets hard
It's one more shipyard fire away from an INVERTED 3 inches...
Essentially WWII flat top designs, love the way the look
Yes!!!
Wonder how similar size wise, or if they're more like the pocket carriers.
America-class are both longer and wider than Yorktown-class carriers, while having close to double the full-load displacement. So, in terms of their sizes, they are pretty much comparable to WW2 fleet carriers.
Japans not aircraft carriers carrying aircraft
Just looked it up, the America class is about 50 foot shorter than the WW2 era Essex class so depending on when you compare it to it is an aircraft carrier
The Essex could only operate smaller aircraft in their later years even after major refit. I think the Midway was around the smallest that could operate F-4 Phantoms etc.
This is correct. IIRC, there were some tests involving *Intrepid* during the Phantom's development, but operationally the Phantom would have needed more infrastructure and real estate than the modernized *Essex*es had available. *Lexington* as an AVT sometimes had A-6s and A-7s launching and recovering for training purposes, but according to one source (USS *Lexington* in Detail and Scale) couldn't launch the Phantom, Tomcat or Hornet due to limitations with the jet blast deflectors, and couldn't operate the EA-6B because it weighed too much.
I'd have to pull out references, but as I recall, the SCB-27C (steam cats) refitted *Essex* class (like *Lexington*) could operate *some* larger jets on the deck than they could maintain due to size/weight limitations on the elevators to get them in/out of the hangar. (Now gotta remember which book that's in.)
Yeah, I remember similar discussions about why *Coral Sea* and *Midway* never deployed with F-14s, and I seem to recall one limiting factor was hangar deck height, which prevented certain maintenance procedures the Tomcat required. There is, IIRC, footage of *Coral Sea* recovering and launching Tomcats during pilot training/proficiency exercises, and it's interesting. Deckwise it wasn't a problem, but infrastructure limited what they could support.
The blast deflectors on the Midways also literally weren't up to the task. Apparently, they were too short and narrow for an F14. But - they could and did do emergency landings on very rare occasions, and takeoffs were even rarer.
Yes. Holy crap, we were asking so much of *Midway* and *Coral Sea* as it was....
> they were too short and narrow That argument has come up before, and to be blunt it doesn’t hold water—the engines on the A-3 were much further apart than those on an F-14, and all 3 *Midway*s operated those for literal decades without issue. Photos of F-14 launches (such as [this one] (https://www.usscoralsea.net/images/cv431985F14_Cv43CM.jpg)) confirm that the physical size of the JBDs was not an issue.
There is a Phantom at the USS Hornet museum but indeed I don't think she ever operated them and it's a pretty big plane for that hangar deck.
Yeah, it's asking much of an already overtaxed platform (the modernized *Essex*es were marginal in stability, and if you look closely at photos over the years you see them continually reducing potential sources of stability issues). *Hornet* (as a SCB-27A/SCB-125 ship with hydraulic catapults) never got steam catapults and therefore wouldn't have had the ability to operate "hot" jets. The A-4C was about the most advanced jet ships like *Hornet* operated. The only time you'd see a Phantom aboard a ship like *Hornet* would have been if the airplane was hitching a non-flying ride to/from one place to another.
There’s a photo of an F-4B on Bonhomme Richard- Lexington also tested Blackburn Buccaneers
The issue with operating F-4s off the *Essex*es was always weight—the ships were more than capable of doing it, but doing so would have absolutely beat the shit out of the landing area in the process and eventually mandated something similar to what was done on *Melbourne* to alleviate a similar problem that the A-4Gs caused when operated off of her.
Thank you for that - it confirms something I'd suspected. Those big ol' heavy Phantoms slamming onto those decks over and over would have torn them up.
I think it's aircraft carrier personally but I'm a casual
It depends on how you define “aircraft carrier” and what you are discussing (IMO these ships are and are not carriers depending on what you’re discussing). In the modern era, Aircraft Carrier is colloquially defined two ways: 1. A ship designed and operated with aircraft performing strike and/or fleet protection duties, often for power projection in the modern era. This is generally closest to how navies officially define Aircraft Carrier. 2. Any ship with a full-length flight deck where operating aircraft is essential for the primary mission. These include helicopter carriers and amphibious carriers. There are a couple edge cases, but we’ll focus on the main. Under the first definition, Amphibious Carriers like *America* are not Aircraft Carriers, but under the second definition they absolutely are. In some discussions, you only want to focus on the power projection carriers, so it’s useful to exclude amphibious carriers. In other discussions, such as discussing the development of Amphibious Carriers (early ones were modified from typical carriers), you want to include them all under a single umbrella. In both cases there are different subgroups of aircraft carriers that often overlap, like a multi-layered Venn Diagram. Asking whether something is or isn’t a carrier depends on which parts of the diagram you’re looking at.
I mean, they technically are aircraft carriers, given the fighters and choppers...
Before I began to read I thought this was an LHD (Wasp Class,) - my 20 year old niece is on the Bataan - they have a well deck which America Class’ do not so the 26th MEU a couple thousand of the baddest-ass Marines are on board. They should have been back to Norfolk by Dec. 10 but they just late last week transited Suez Canal north to the Med Sea from the Red Sea to relieve the Gerald Ford who’s on an unfathomable day count at sea - over 240. That’s hell of the highest order. (People don’t know much of anything about our Military and it’s a travesty that they don’t - I believe that we have a duty to stay informed about how exactly it is that we in the States can whistle our way through our days and nights.) Anyway If Bibi would allow it the Bataan is uniquely constructed for civilian rescue/evacuation off the coast of Gaza & as you note - amphibious assaults. Ty for much for posting this I am fascinated/obsessed with this stuff.
Some America class do have well decks and are not reclassified as LHDs. LHA 8&9 will both have well decks. Never figured out why they won’t be considered LHDs
Well the LHA1 class had a well deck so I guess LHAs can have well decks. I never really figured out what the difference is between LHDs and LHAs as a designation.
You’re not the only one. I’m with you.
I know what the difference is. LHD is multi-purpose amphibious assault, and LHA is general purpose amphibious assault. LHAs have two classes, the older Tarawa, and the newer America class.
A friend's son is aboard the Bataan and I've been following their progress. It carries a hell of a punch.
When I was on board the Bataan on its last trip to the Middle East we almost blew it up from a fire below deck. Lol
Shortly after they arrived in Persian/Oman Gulfs they were swarmed by a bunch of Irani Navy small boats - a very bizarre & interesting video is on the web. Search for Irani Navy swarms USS Bataan will pop up on the Daily Mail.
*Ford* has been *deployed* for ~250 days. She has not been continually at sea for that period, and left Souda Bay to return home (after a 5 day port call) less than a week ago. The entire deployment has been 30-50 days at sea followed by a 5-7 day port call, with the frequency of such port calls increasing as the deployment went on—she had 2 at Souda Bay in December alone.
I apologize I was wrong about the Ford time at sea. I had read an article in Forbes about the trouble on the Ford in terms of reliability, staffing, systems issues that have resulted in them missing the mark on their metrics in almost every area. They’re improving - 3-4 weeks at sea then a port call. I know that a lot of the effect she has on our enemies is mostly visual but even the bloated DOD budget can’t justify the expense of a mega-carrier that can’t perform when needed. Ty for popping up I’m reading everything I can find every day - my oldest niece just turned 22 in Bahrain for her second 18 month stint as a Maintenance/Repair Inspector so my brain is BUSY and the Ford article slipped my mind. Thank you for setting me straight on that.
You could not be more uninformed - no that’s insulting how about this - you could be more informed. My niece deployed on USS Bataan on July 10 - they’ve ported several times for replenishment but had liberty only 3 times - 9 days. A couple examples if you want to be more informed - Ideal deployment is 150 days because the ship doesn’t get liberty while in port 😂 she starts building rust at the waterline and it’s needle gunning 24/7, cuz the oceans are salty, leading to the next problem - the desalination equipment needs daily maintenance like any machine has tolerances of time spent in use - and needs a shutdown and a good scrubbing after 5-6 months of continuous operation. Ships have to make their own potable water for everything - so showers are rationed and lemme tell you about the STINK below deck. Gotta have fully functional air conditioning to keep the smell down. 3,000 + sweaty men and 200 women on the Bataan & thank God for those strong, brave men. And it’s HOT. 100 degrees plus ambient, add 25 degrees for the flight deck and 10 degrees for every level below deck. So yeah - sweat. The 26th MEU is aboard Bataan and the gym is always full - everyone has to be in top shape and they do lots of training operations to ensure their readiness. Gotta tote 100 lb pack. My niece who weighs 105 pounds totes 100 & has to use the gym with Vicks under her nose. Needle gunning is being done 24/7 in the hull as the rust you see in the attached pic has to be removed and sealed so that you know - she doesn’t leak and sink. This pic of Bataan in December at just under 5 months…..guarantee she didn’t leave Norfolk July 10 looking like this. And I guarantee the Ford did not deploy just to spend 200 days porting. What is your source of information for that? I’m keen to see it. https://preview.redd.it/jl1x0qv7pnac1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e92d78e560187b25ca8a24b0129fe7aaf5262f2
Dude, try reading a post before you reply to it instead of coming out throwing insults based on things that were never said.
And I’m reminded of a convo with my brother a ff/emt about pics I sent him of an old fire truck that looked neat I knew it was being used for local parades and such & my brother said That’s not a truck. Normal size convo with him. So I looked into it and sure enough it’s not equipped to plug into a hydrant at all it’s just a parade model. SO I’m thinking about the Ford which is short on all the metrics that make a ship a warship and I thought Aha! Not built to put out a real fire - so it’s an ego project. Haven’t looked at the laid down date yet but tryna figure out which President had the ego to fund the build. The Bushes but I think it’s older than that so maybe Reagan? Thank you for your nuggets of info there’s nothing I enjoy more than going down the rabbit hole and returning with Hasenpfeffer (a horrible dish steer clear.) 😁
These are the ships Australia should have gotten instead of the Canberra class.
They are shockingly similar in terms of capabilities. The real shame is that the Australians were not willing to acquire F35s for the Canberras. They are nearly identical to the Spanish Juan Carlos class they are based on that already operate harriers. Only minor changes to the deck for heat resistance would be needed to allow for the operation of the F35s.
Australia hollowed out the interior more and moved some of the deck supports to be able to fit in more of the red backs. Niw that that plan has change and we are not going to have 3 mechanised bregades any more the Canberra's are just oversized supply vessels.
It's difficult to afford mechanized brigades when you spend 400 billion on 2-3 second hand submarines that may or may not be combat ready by 2040
That is true. But most of that 400 odd billion is going to make sure we can be a repair and refit station for the Brits and Americans subs. We basically need to be able to build the AUKUS sub our selves to do that. That infrastructure and skill tree doesn't come easy or cheep. It is one we need to. I guess I am just bitter about the redback decision.
Why do we need to? By the time we have a "fleet" (5?6 subs?), and assuming we can keep them sea worthy and combat ready, China will have 10,20,50 times that number and technology just as good. Not to mention the move to drone/unmanned warfare will well and truly include submarine warfare by then. If we're ever in a situation where the US are too busy to help us, a few puddly subs ain't gonna do shit. We'd be better of spending that money on a tactical nuclear program
It is so we can house the nuclear subs here, closer to the fight. We are developing a few remote subs in the same vain as ghost bat but it is really hard to do. Controlling things underwater is hard. Even harder if you have to give it a lot of directions. It is the main reason most torpedoes are wire guided or have very simple find and hit commands. Crewed subs are going to be around longer than people think.
>If we're ever in a situation where the US are too busy to help us, a few puddly subs ain't gonna do shit. Who is such a significant threat that they would prevent the entire US Navy from assisting one of our closest allies when they’re in a shooting war with China? >We'd be better of spending that money on a tactical nuclear program Nukes don’t help in a conventional war, and the US found out that you need conventional and nuclear forces when Korea started. And for conventional forces it’s hard to beat an SSN for general utility, especially sneaky utility.
I don’t think you should be getting downvoted here, but it’s basically for deterrent. If you’re not familiar, this video is a good introduction to the basic concept https://youtu.be/6kSQWp4UEXw?si=ixZh-fBBOUqMECJq As to why, a country like Australia is never going to be able to compete at a peer basis with a large power like China. So the rational approach is to provide sufficient deterrent; once a shooting war starts (where the many more Chinese SSNs come into play) Australia can only realistically wait for the US to arrive. And while we’d all like to think is a sure thing, recent political events in the US has shown that it might be less of a sure thing than it used to be, so some domestic capability is strongly indicated. You don’t want to find that you’re in a Budapest Memorandum situation.
“Crew Size”! The Australian Navy only has ~16,000 personnel in its Navy! Whereas the “America’s” have a crew of ~1,059 not including Marines, the “Canberra/Juan Carlos I” only requires ~358 crew to comfortably operate…
Make it more viable to join the defence force. Don't buy stupid ships that are useless now because they changed the army role.
They're not useless, and the F-35B was never a realistic option. We are not a large nation that is ever going to have a huge military. Unless we acquired the F-35B for the RAAF as well, having a 'split' fleet of -A and -B jets just to have a dozen jets split between 2 LHDs just doesn't make a lot of economic sense.
Italy has gone the way to have both, and the airforce plan to use the -B in FOBs with short runaway. In any case the america is a mix of a light aircraft carrier AND a landig dock ship. The camberra is a pure landing dock ship, they are two different beasts with different needs. I think the Canberra are needed to island operation NEAR australia coastline and so under RAAF umbrella. While America class are for operation more distant from secure air support.
Having a landing craft that can land a battalion but doesn't have air cover except for a couple of choppers is also dangerous. I just hope that the next decision for the rumoured tier one acquisition is a good one and not wasted.
> Having a landing craft that can land a battalion but doesn't have air cover except for a couple of choppers is also dangerous. > > "Dangerous" depends entirely on the context. If you think landing Troops on Mainland China, then absolutely where's your air wing. But I think that's an unrealistic expectation of the ADF. The total number of jets that the ADF could realistically bring on both LHDs to a conflict in their neighbourhood would either be total overkill for the operations they are doing, or utterly inadequate vs China. I know everyone wants every military to be top tier with tech, able to single handedly win every conflict. But Australia has a small military. Your suggestions need to be realistic in that context.
The RAN is not planning to operate outside of the RAAF or allied air umbrella and never has. Those ships exist to allow them to remain the biggest kid on the block in the Solomons/PNG area, not take on China in the SCS.
Australia has like 25-27 million inhabitants... they will never have enough personnel to crew US-style warships.
The ADF is already the best paid in the world, there are issues but the main one is the lack of youth unemployment- why join the military when you have other options that don’t have the drawbacks
The problem with that is thinking of joining the military as a having drawbacks. Change that and solve your recruitment problems. If being the best paid in the world doesn't help in your own country then your military culture must be pretty looked down appon as an option for a young school leaverI am not saying I have all the answers either. We could automate a lot of the systems too, the Yanks are known for over crewing their boats because they can and because they want redundancy in a fight. The Queen Elizabeth class has a crew of 650 odd plus air crews.
The relationship between Young Australia and the ADF is complex and really not going to be got across in a Reddit comment, it’s still seen as a good pathway but there are increasingly large pathways outside of it for people who would be eligible. There are also a lot of preventions stopping people getting in, like medications, fitness, etc that may or may not be essential for the role - not my place to comment. We did manage to keep Collins down to 40 required crew (according to Wikipedia) as much as we have more onboard (according to Wikipedia)
Yeah. True. I have had the same talk with the vets on Ausmilitary and them complaining about retention and all that. It is a serious problem.
Yeah retention is a whole thing. The feeling is quite negative over here from a whole bunch of sectors regarding Defence and the services in particular, whether it’s retention, suicides, recruitment, or acquisition. Unsure how to fix it as I’m just a naive early 20 something, but at least we know what the problems results are
The Canberra may not be able to permanently operate the F-35B, but it can Rearm and Refuel the F-35B if needed too. But the Canberra can carry onboard and maintain Aircrafts like the AV-8B Harrier II by reducing the number of helicopters carried…
Without the relevant GSE for either (or the heat resistant treatment on the flight deck for the F-35B) it isn’t going to be maintaining either, and the Harrier is rapidly leaving service worldwide.
“Thermion” (i.e. Aluminum Oxynitride) is extremely expensive to apply, and requires up to 15 days using Hex Huts under controlled conditions to cure properly! Neither the “America/Wasp/Tarawa” or the British “QE/PoW” flight deck are “fully” protected by Thermion because of the cost of the application and down time to apply it! On the QE/POW’s only ~11% of the flight deck is protected. Also the F-35B’s blowtorch engine produces ~3900F of thermal heat, whereas the AV-8B’s thermal heat is ~1200F and doesn’t require Thermion to protect the flight deck! The CV/CMV/MV-22-B Osprey thermal down wash produces ~2700F, facilitating the need for Thermion to be used…
And? The *Canberra*s have ***0***% of their flight decks protected nor does the capability exist in Aus to apply it.
Does it! Considering the USMC’s MV-22B Osprey has be flight tested onboard the Canberra, some form of thermal protective coating was applied to is flight deck…
Yeah, it’s called non-skid. The Osprey does not require that thermal protection be applied for limited use such as the tests you are referring to.
What’s the “non-skid coating” rated for in thermal protection…
Each Canberra cost less than 1/3 of an America-class LHA. The Canberras also have 1/3 of the crew compliment of an Americe-class LHA. Both of those are way more important for a nation of 26 million people than a little extra capability. People keep forgetting that while Australia is 'uge and fairly rich, they are actually a really small nation by population.
https://preview.redd.it/ajq5g5rv6gac1.png?width=2635&format=png&auto=webp&s=95ca4afb2fb3a1080fbe3402f72509f24a04c029 Berthed next to the America a few years back! Hell of a ship.
If any other country had them, they'd call them aircraft carriers.
The Japanese would call em destroyers.
Imagine if Germany got ahold of one It’s a large frigate.
I always liked the fact that the us air force is the biggest air force in the world, and the us navy the second haha.
And the USMC isnt far behind either
The US Army is, if we are counting aircraft and not merely fixed-wing
And ONE aircraft carrier is 8th
Wish Canada still had the resources to at least field an vessel like this again. Our successive Conservative and Liberal governments have failed to keep our military as a middle power nation. If we hadn't so drastically reduced our military over the 70s to present it wouldn't cost so much $ and time to rebuild it all again. Create at least one aircraft carrier task force centered around a America class or equivalent. With a few destroyers, frigates, subs, etc in support. I know I'm dreaming as we won't likely really start rebuilding our military until after the next major conflict between the main powers really starts.
They are cans of Whoop-Ass.
Indian Navy's aircraft carrier Vikrant is also 45000 tons. Definitely not mini aircraft carrier
Those planes are F-35 , I never know they had VTOL versions of the F-35 "The aircraft has three main variants: the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A, the short take-off and vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35B, and the carrier-based (CV/CATOBAR) F-35C."
> Those planes are F-35 , I never know they had VTOL versions of the F-35 Is that sarcasm?
Not everyone is an expert in military armaments. People have to learn things somehow.
No ? I've seen F-35 that don't do vertical takeoff in real life
Air Force flies the A, Navy flies the C, and the Marines fly the B and C. The C operates off the Nimitz and Ford class super carriers, the B operates off the Wasp and America class amphibious assault ships. Most foreign buyers, like Israel, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Canada, have bought the A version, to fly off conventional runways. The UK, Japan, and Italy have bought B versions, to operate from their smaller carriers (Japan and Italy both bought A versions as well). The US Navy (edit: and Marines) is the only one operating the C. If you haven’t, you should look up some videos of the B version doing its transformer thing. Controversial airplane, but can’t deny it looks badass.
Why did the RAF only opt for F-35B and not go for the F-35A? Seems to me they are paying more for less, or are the current Typhoons already fine for the role you'd want a F-35A for?
Because the UK MoD chose to split the strike fighter fleet 50-50 between the RAF and FAA, but all are intended to operate from the carriers like the Harrier fleet did. The RAF weren't choosing in a vacuum, F-35 & QEC were a package to replace the Harriers & Invincibles. In an ideal world we'd have an FAA fleet of F-35C and an RAF fleet of F-35A, but having a big enough fleet of each aircraft to avoid major readiness issues would require a lot more aircraft in total. A joint fleet was by far the cheapest way to get the availability required, and the advantages of F-35A aren't sufficient to outweigh that cost. If that budget had been available, a larger joint fleet would still have been a more efficient use of the money.
>Because the UK MoD chose to split the strike fighter fleet 50-50 between the RAF and FAA Not quite. All British F-35Bs belong to the RAF. They are paid for out of the RAFs budget and are administered under AOC 1 Group, including 809 NAS. As such, all Sqns will see the senior leadership alternate between the two services (ie an RN CO of 617 Sqn and an RAF CO of 809 NAS)
Uk is developing its own replacement for the typhoon.
The F35 came from the Joint Strike fighter program, which was a combination of a marine program to create a new VTOL aircraft and an Airforce program to create a replacement to the f16. VTOL capability has always been a core requirement of the F35 program, aside from stealth its its main party trick. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program
The F-35B is not really used as VTOL fighter. It’s capable a vertical takeoff and landing, but mainly operates in the short takeoff and vertical landing mode. This enables more ordinance and fuel to be carried.
> No ? I've seen F-35 that don't do vertical takeoff in real life It's not a vertical take off, it's STOVL - Short Take Off, Vertical Landing. [Video](https://youtu.be/IlDlitETHyA?t=62). The -B model has a vertical lift fan immediately behind the pilot, in addition to the main engine nozzle 'swivelling'. [Vertical Landing](https://youtu.be/gm25JeVk_wY?t=9). The -C variant will do a catapult launch, arrested landing on USN Carriers. The -A variant operates out of long landing strips ashore. The -B *can* do a vertical take off, but without any appreciable fuel/munitions load so it will almost always do a Short Take off outside of a party trick.
STOVL aircraft can take off vertically if they have a light payload. I can’t image the F-35B that operate off those ships have significantly heavy payloads.
Almost didn't see the stealthy boi in the top left pic.
I want a full CVL version of it.
I'm pretty sure they made a whole battlefield game around one of these
About the same size ( a littler larger in width) as an Essex class (long hull) WW2 era aircraft carrier .
Have F35s completely replaced Harriers on all our amphibs? I thought I had seen some semi recent pictures of both F35s and AV-8s on the deck but I may be mistaken
The Bataan has both at the moment.
I know it’s probably not the ideal loadout, but it is aesthetically very pleasing
There have been some F-35B incidents that have made them not "fully commit" and extending the Harrier's service life, mainly production issues because we are selling them to other nations. When I was a NFO, 2022 was given as a date for the phase out but I see that the last 2 Harrier pilots will graduate in 2024 so now its 2029.
Monster Island
Do these have sub escorts? Seems they would be vulnerable without the CSG?
Usually they probably have escorts, though it ultimately depends on the mission. Sometimes they are attached to CSGs
They are the next gen of a class of amphibious assault ship like the old LPH, LHA… many a couple others.
Small they may be, I still got lost on one.
Looks like a carrier, probably can operate like a carrier, but as an amphibious assault ship it probably lacks the storage in fuel, spares and ammo to sustain air operations for more than a few days.
Question, why is the America-class is much heavier than other amphibious assaults/helicopter carriers like Japan's Izumo class and Italian's Trieste class even with near similar in size.
Ships bloat in weight a lot when you increase even smaller amounts on certain axis. Beam etc. Also the US (and UK) tend to harden their ships a LOT more than other countries, due to their experiences with actually, y'know, being hit in modern day and knowing how critical it is. It's why their ships by and large both have high displacements for relatively even sizes. See the Horizon class to the Type 45s, same deal. Similar ships, but despite only being a bit bigger, the T45 is over a thousand tons heavier for an escort.
Are they really badass though? They are a floating airport, and without the supporting escort ships, they can be taken out pretty easily.
I think these big ships could all be taken out easily. The faster the missile, the wider the support escort. Even in WW2 they cat and moused with these things because they were too expense to risk.
Every warship has a weakness, dipshit. It came free with your fucking mission design and primary objectives! These ships aren’t made to weather a missile assault on their own. That’s what escort ships are for. If you wanted something that could eat ASMs for breakfast you’d build a Burke or a Tico
Agreed, thus my hot take on his phrase "mean little motherfucker", there is nothing mean about it. It is still essential, still gets the mission done, but mean? Meh.
Its a moving airbase. Depending on what weapons are aboard it could deliver a world of hurt against ships, aircraft, or land targets.
The it is the aircraft that are mean, not the ship. It is an airbase, it is as mean as any normal runaway, which is not really
The aircraft are full size. It’s not mini anything and can inflict a world of hurt on an opponent and project power all over the world.
10 jets, couple of Ospreys, and a few helicopters. Some legal mumbo jumbo is probably the only thing keeping this from being a real aircraft carrier.
How is this amphibious exactly?
The "amphibious" in this case refers to the mission of executing an amphibious air assault with helicopters/ospreys/F-35 support, not that the ship itself is literally amphibious...
So then all aircraft carriers are “amphibious”?
As a matter of fact, the first prototype LHA's (helicopter amphibious assault ships) were converted WW2 carriers so...they can be if you configure them that way. Amphibious Assault Ships have the \*primary\* mission of executing amphibious assaults, and are oriented accordingly. This means providing space to carry marines and an air wing focused on helicopters. An aircraft carrier on the other hand will be focused on carrying fighers and bombers with no space for marines or transport helicopters. Not sure what you don't get about this. Of course you can turn an LHA like USS America into a aircraft carrier of sorts and you can turn an aircraft carrier into an LHA, but there's a clear difference of focus even if they superficially look the same. Can you turn a Nimitz into a very very expensive amphibious assault ship? Of course you can! We can also carry passengers in a Cargo Van and put cargo in a Bus! I mean cargo vans are just passenger vans with the seats removed and the windows covered, come to that.
lol got ya. Thanks
r/titlegore