zanl188 wrote:

Ski jump takes up deck space that cannot be used by helicopters. If USN needs a strike capability they’ll use a CVN.

zanl188 wrote:

Ski jump takes up deck space that cannot be used by helicopters. If USN needs a strike capability they’ll use a CVN.

Max Q wrote:

Curious as to why

Another philosophical difference is that the British are open to ideas that to Americans seem goofy, but work, such as the 12-degree ramp at the bow of the ship that dramatically improves Harrier operations. Senior U.S. naval officers over the decades have vetoed the idea, saying they don’t like how it looks and that it takes up three helicopter landing spots. British and Marine officers say only one deck spot is lost to the “ski jump.”
To a man, Marine pilots want the ramps installed on their ships to improve operational flexibility and safety.
“We’re all in love with the ski ramp because when you come off that ramp, you’re flying,” Bradicich said. “From our ships, if you’re fully loaded, you need 750 feet, and even then you’ve got some sink once you clear the deck. Here, you can do the same thing in 450 feet and you’re climbing.”
But the ramp is intimidating at first sight, pilots said.
“I expected it to be violent, but when you take off, it’s almost a non-event,” said Maj. Grant “Postal” Pennington, a pilot with VMA-513 at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz. “Up you go, and you’re climbing. It’s a great experience.”

Max Q wrote:

Since the ski jump is built into the bow
the ‘loss of space’ is minimal, I’m fact since
it allows launching aircraft to use significantly less deck space it actually adds to the usable deck parking area

To your second point, although these are Navy ships we are talking about it’s
a Marine air group that’s embarked

Their Harriers and /or F35’s are certainly
capable of and have performed strike missions

My point is, a ski jump would allow them to carry more weapons and / or payload

Stealthz wrote:

Funny how people or groups get stuck in their ways, the RAN folk were just as adamant about KEEPING the ski jumps on HMAS Hobart & Canberra and had no intention of operating F35 from them!!

zanl188 wrote:

Why use helo deck space for strike aircraft when USN has dedicated ships for that mission? How many decks does USN need to launch strikes from? Sounds to me like you're suggesting 35 - 40 if amphibs are ski jump equipped. Overkill.

Marine air groups can work from the CVN and then go ashore. Assuming they'll do VTOL operations ashore they'll lose the ski-jump capability anyway.

My point is, a ski jump is unnecessary due to dedicated ships available to handle that mission. Deck space thus save is better used for helps.

mxaxai wrote:

So why carry F-35B strike aircraft if there are dedicated ships for that role? Hangar space could be used for more helicopters or amphibious crafts instead.

The Marine Corps is manned, trained, and equipped to be an expeditionary force in readiness ‐ the nation’s middleweight force ‐ ready and forward deployed, capable of crisis response, entry and sustained operations across the range of military operations. Our Marine Corps exists to fight for the nation we serve, and Marine aviation exists to provide the MAGTF commander the flexibility and agility to conduct that fight at the time, place, and manner of his choosing. Marine aviation supports the ground forces of the MAGTF by contributing to battlespace dominance through air operations and power projection.

Max Q wrote:

If deck space is so tight the concern is losing one helicopter parking spot then build a slightly larger ship

Max Q wrote:

If deck space is so tight the concern is losing one helicopter parking spot then build a slightly larger ship.

Max Q wrote:

Judging from the very favorable comments quoted from some of these pilots on the benefits it would bring (and these must be known by those higher up) it seems the reason for the ski jump not being adopted is a case of ‘not invented here’

Ozair wrote:

I don’t think that is the issue. Why would it be given the USMC have bene flying a jet that very much was not invented here. It really does just come down to force generation and sortie rate for RW assets.

tommy1808 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

I don’t think that is the issue. Why would it be given the USMC have bene flying a jet that very much was not invented here. It really does just come down to force generation and sortie rate for RW assets.

plus a pinch of politics to avoid the impression that cheap sea control ships could replace some large carrier duties.

One could not just add a full 12° - 14° ski-jump ramp, the Giuseppe Garibaldi has a 6.5° ramp that probably is still usable as parking space. The most forward market out landing spot is partially on it.

They packed quite a lot on only 14000 tons of ship.

best regards
Thomas

ThePointblank wrote:

Giuseppe Garibaldi was built as a carrier, not as an amphibious assault ship.

LightningZ71 wrote:

For the rest of the America class, since they have well decks and aren't ONLY vertical assault ships, the ramp actually makes them more flexible for aviation purposes without significantly diminishing their primary roles. I suspect that, as America and Triploi head into dry dock for their mid-life refits, they will get ramps. By that time, I suspect that the US carrier forces will be further strained and having a pair of ships that can be considered light carriers and support small units as needed will be extremely valuable to them.

However, there are many supporters of the idea of using America as a launching point for a “light carrier” idea. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis included the America-based concept in its Future Fleet Architecture study delivered to the Navy earlier this year, and the Senate Armed Services Committee in its Fiscal Year 2018 defense bill sets aside $30 million for the Navy to conduct a preliminary design effort. The light carrier would add a catapult or two to the America-class’s straight flight deck to allow for larger fixed-wing aircraft, such as the Navy’s E2-D Advanced Hawkeye command and control plane, to operate as part of the ARG/MEU.

LightningZ71 wrote:

As long as the USN has full sized CATOBAR carriers, they will forever see no point in putting a ramp on the Gator Carriers. I think for the America and the Tripoli, It makes sense NOT to have the ramp as those were conceived as vertical assault ships needing maximum rotor wing capabilities. For the rest of the America class, since they have well decks and aren't ONLY vertical assault ships, the ramp actually makes them more flexible for aviation purposes without significantly diminishing their primary roles. I suspect that, as America and Triploi head into dry dock for their mid-life refits, they will get ramps. By that time, I suspect that the US carrier forces will be further strained and having a pair of ships that can be considered light carriers and support small units as needed will be extremely valuable to them.

LightningZ71 wrote:

My thoughts on this are specifically geared to the notion that the powers at the very top of the chain will be hard pressed to keep the US at it's current carrier posture. The US is already short one carrier from their intended target number. The Ford STILL isn't ready for an operational deployment. The second of the series is still getting stuff torn out and redone according to some of what I've read. The first Nimitz will be shortly due for either a very expensive service life extension, which would include a refueling and other significant work which would keep it out of the water for a long time, or retirement.

tommy1808 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Giuseppe Garibaldi was built as a carrier, not as an amphibious assault ship.

technically it was specifically not build as an aircraft carrier, as the Italian Navy at the time was banned by law to operate fixed wing aircraft.

But both is irrelevant to the topic at hand, it only goes to show that you can have sky jump without making that space useless for anything else but jumping into the sky.

best regards
Thomas

LightningZ71 wrote:

My thoughts on this are specifically geared to the notion that the powers at the very top of the chain will be hard pressed to keep the US at it's current carrier posture. The US is already short one carrier from their intended target number. The Ford STILL isn't ready for an operational deployment. The second of the series is still getting stuff torn out and redone according to some of what I've read. The first Nimitz will be shortly due for either a very expensive service life extension, which would include a refueling and other significant work which would keep it out of the water for a long time, or retirement.

Max Q wrote:

Don’t understand this suggestion to install catapults on these amphibious straight deck carriers


That makes zero sense, if you have catapults to launch conventional fixed wing aircraft then you’ll need
arresting wires to recover them


Then you’re going back to the era before the angled deck where you had to have a safety barrier between the touchdown area and parked aircraft situated on the forward deck


This was an accident waiting to happen and many did, if the pilot misjudged the approach, missing the arrester cables and the barrier didn’t always stop the aircraft, on numerous occasions it would go over the barrier and hit parked aircraft beyond it


A go around started too late could result in the same catastrophic ending with the aircraft catching the barrier and tumbling into deck parked aircraft


That was the one of the main reasons all conventional aircraft carriers adopted the Royal Navys angled deck


A missed approach or botched landing allows the Pilot to simply fly away straight ahead with no obstacle in his path


I
Of course this configuration also allows simultaneous launch and recover with the two forward catapults well clear and angled away from the landing area

Max Q wrote:

Don’t understand this suggestion to install catapults on these amphibious straight deck carriers


That makes zero sense, if you have catapults to launch conventional fixed wing aircraft then you’ll need arresting wires to recover them


Then you’re going back to the era before the angled deck where you had to have a safety barrier between the touchdown area and parked aircraft situated on the forward deck


This was an accident waiting to happen and many did, if the pilot misjudged the approach, missing the arrester cables and the barrier didn’t always stop the aircraft, on numerous occasions it would go over the barrier and hit parked aircraft beyond it


A go around started too late could result in the same catastrophic ending with the aircraft catching the barrier and tumbling into deck parked aircraft


That was the one of the main reasons all conventional aircraft carriers adopted the Royal Navies angled deck


A missed approach or botched landing allows the Pilot to simply fly away straight ahead with no obstacle in his path


I
Of course this configuration also allows simultaneous launch and recover with the two forward catapults well clear and angled away from the landing area

Max Q wrote:

Don’t understand this suggestion to install catapults on these amphibious straight deck carriers


That makes zero sense, if you have catapults to launch conventional fixed wing aircraft then you’ll need
arresting wires to recover them

Max Q wrote:

Then you’re going back to the era before the angled deck where you had to have a safety barrier between the touchdown area and parked aircraft situated on the forward deck


This was an accident waiting to happen and many did, if the pilot misjudged the approach, missing the arrester cables and the barrier didn’t always stop the aircraft, on numerous occasions it would go over the barrier and hit parked aircraft beyond it


A go around started too late could result in the same catastrophic ending with the aircraft catching the barrier and tumbling into deck parked aircraft


That was the one of the main reasons all conventional aircraft carriers adopted the Royal Navies angled deck


A missed approach or botched landing allows the Pilot to simply fly away straight ahead with no obstacle in his path

Of course this configuration also allows simultaneous launch and recover with the two forward catapults well clear and angled away from the landing area