Aircraft Carriers III

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
It seems everyone assumes that in the LPH role the ship will drop anchor a couple of hundred yards offshore from the landing beaches, where she can be shot at with AK-47s and pistols.
Agreed. The only reason to operate close to the shore is the range of landing craft. That means a well deck or landing ramp. QE class lacks either. She take the Expeditionary force ashore by air not boat or Amphibious vehicle.
The Royal Marines operate as a raiding force as opposed to the USMC who operates as a landing force. Royal Marines are commandos. Small actions.
 

Brumby

Major
I
A QEC operating in the LPH role will be well out to sea, over the horizon in fact. Helicopters have a very reasonable range, and the ship will still have a full task force with defensive vessels and at least a single sqn of Lightnings embarked backed by Crowsnest and the Merlin ASW force. It is a core role for the QECs and they will absolutely not be used as defenceless barges to be picked off from the shore. They will remain out of sight and out of reach of the enemies forces, as much as any Navy can, which also explains why no landing craft are carried as with her predecessors in the role such as HMS Ocean and the previous generations LPHs like HMS Hermes, Albion and Bulwark.

With the advent of mobile long range stand off weapons and their proliferation even to low end adversaries, ship to shore connectors are increasing outranged. Vertical lift capacity and possibility of attrition would severely restrict scope of operations and the risk imposed on such valuable assets. I doubt we will ever see any sufficiently scaled amphibious assault going forward.
 
It seems everyone assumes that in the LPH role the ship will drop anchor a couple of hundred yards offshore from the landing beaches, where she can be shot at with AK-47s and pistols.

No.

A QEC operating in the LPH role will be well out to sea, over the horizon in fact. Helicopters have a very reasonable range, and the ship will still have a full task force with defensive vessels and at least a single sqn of Lightnings embarked backed by Crowsnest and the Merlin ASW force. It is a core role for the QECs and they will absolutely not be used as defenceless barges to be picked off from the shore. They will remain out of sight and out of reach of the enemies forces, as much as any Navy can, which also explains why no landing craft are carried as with her predecessors in the role such as HMS Ocean and the previous generations LPHs like HMS Hermes, Albion and Bulwark.
Sep 12, 2016
I don't like the idea of supercarrier–of–all–trades:
[linked
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
which is still available]
 
plus wondering what this "outfit" is going to achieve:
Munitions-Handling-Aircraft-Carriers-1014x487.jpg

it's from Yesterday at 8:28 PM
linking the blog post (dated today) about
Munitions handling on the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Brumby

Major
The only reason to operate close to the shore is the range of landing craft. That means a well deck or landing ramp. QE class lacks either. She take the Expeditionary force ashore by air not boat or Amphibious vehicle.
The Royal Marines operate as a raiding force as opposed to the USMC who operates as a landing force. Royal Marines are commandos. Small actions.

The new Commandant of the USMC has conceded that the old ways of amphibious assault is no longer a practical solution because of long range precision strike and the risks to the major assets.

Berger, who took command earlier this month, wasted no time in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of the Marine amphibious strategy, calling the current approach of moving Marines ashore aboard slow, small amphibious vehicles and helicopters an “impractical and unreasonable” plan that has been wedged within a force that “is not organized, trained, or equipped to support the naval force” in high-end combat.

In other words, Berger is calling into question the Navy’s years-old requirement for 38 amphibious ships to carry Marines to the fight.

“The ability to project and maneuver from strategic distances will likely be detected and contested from the point of embarkation during a major contingency,” his new document states, while declaring the Corps must be able to quickly move and scatter forces ashore to avoid the proliferation of precision strike capabilities.

And then comes the key line.

“It would be illogical to continue to concentrate our forces on a few large ships. The adversary will quickly recognize that striking while concentrated (aboard ship) is the preferred option. We need to change this calculus with a new fleet design of smaller, more lethal, and more risk-worthy platforms.”

The decades-old idea that Marines could punch their way ashore from amphibious ships parked dozens of miles offshore has been hijacked by reality. In many parts of the world — particularly the Pacific, where China has covered islands with anti-ship missiles and airfields — the old way of thinking has long since died. Even groups like the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen have some stand-off capabilities that could inflict some pain.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The new Commandant of the USMC has conceded that the old ways of amphibious assault is no longer a practical solution because of long range precision strike and the risks to the major assets.



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I am well aware of what he said. And he is correct. Landing ships like LST and LHA face a huge issue as do Carriers.
A Helicopter like a Merlin or Chinook have a set range off the deck of a flat top. That range demands getting closer to shore to deploy assets like Infantry.
A F35B like that on the QE class or America class have a limited range of operations.
But both have far longer range than armored Amphibious platforms like the ACV. Those can only swim a dozen miles.

The Problem for the lighter weight force is although they have a longer range to come across the waters by boats or Helicopters. What do they do on the ground once ashore? They can only bring what they can carry. A CH53K is a big aircraft but it can’t carry an M1A1 Abrams MBT. It can’t carry an ACV or anything that might be able to actually fight. All they can bring are light Jeep type vehicles with mortars and many be light Anti tank weapons.

In the Falklands war the British lucked out. All Argentina had on the ground was at best reservists of light infantry with very light armor in fact what the British faced was exactly their equal in equipment. The Royal Marines SAS and Airborne units had the better training and took the day. But that’s not likely to be the case for the USMC.
Foot infantry vs even the light weight Amphibious armor types is not a good day.
Foot vs Mech. Mech wins unless you are dealing with absolute incompetence <See Middle East>. Potential adversaries of the USMC know this.
Platforms like Osprey extend the range of air landings but all they can deploy is light infantry like the RMC whom are only really useful for trying to seize or disable assets short term but a well built enemy can isolate and bleed them out. Think back to the Rangers in Mogadishu. Isolated with limited assistance out numbered out gunned taking casualties.
Eventually you need that heavy wave to move ashore to bring the heavy weapons in to relieve the light forces to bring the heavy guns to take out enemy armor and tanks.
but that is exactly what the systems you mention aim to prevent. What seems to be happening in the MC is they are looking for ways to push back those assets.
For example using those raiding forces, AA and Long range fires to neuter the air space and sea denial assets.
 

Intrepid

Major
Modern warfare does not know soldiers who are facing each other on a front line. Modern war takes place in the midst of uninvolved third parties, with no clear fronts and without the distinction of warriors from civilians.

An LHD between tankers and cruise liners is not an easy target.
 
May 28, 2019
did he read my rants? LOL
'Crazy Electric Catapult' Won't Be Used on New Aircraft Carriers, Trump Says
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


for those who wouldn't know my rants, here's a sampler:
Jun 10, 2017
now
Inhofe Takes Aim at Ford-Carrier Program Failures; CNO Nominee Gilday Promises Navy Will Do Better
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Vice Adm. Michael Gilday promised the Senate Armed Services Committee that, if he were confirmed to serve as the next chief of naval operations, he would be transparent about ongoing challenges with the first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) and ensure that other new programs like the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine avoid the same pitfalls.

During Gilday’s confirmation hearing, SASC Chairman Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) was critical the Ford-class program, telling Gilday that the carrier fleet has been forced to operate with one-too-few ships since USS Enterprise’s (CVN-65) decommissioning in 2012 due to Ford’s failures.

“The Ford was awarded to a sole-source contractor” and asked to incorporate immature technologies with “next to no testing and (that) had never been integrated on a ship: a new radar, arresting gear, and the weapons elevators,” Inhofe said.
“The Navy entered into this contract in 2008, which, combined with other contracts, ballooned the cost of the ship to more than $13 billion without understanding the technical risk, the cost or the schedules. This ought to be criminal.”

Inhofe said Ford is a “great ship” that is needed in the fleet, but he said a visit to the Newport News Shipbuilding yard left him feeling that “there was a level of arrogance that, it didn’t really make any difference that the elevators don’t work,” noting that only two of the 11 weapons elevators are currently installed and working.

Despite a promise from Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer in January that the elevators would be complete by the end of the ship’s post-shakedown availability at Newport News – which was set to end this month but has been pushed back to October –
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, there has been insufficient progress on the elevators, Inhofe charged.

“At that time, Ford was supposed to pull out from its maintenance period this month. The departure has since been delayed until October. Even with this delay, only two of the 11 elevators are going to be ready in October. Nine elevators will not be ready and likely will not be complete until 2020 or later. The secretary’s promise to the president eight months ago indicates either poor knowledge of the facts or poor judgment. This is the latest example of Navy leaders not being straightforward when it comes to their programs. That’s quite a charge, isn’t it?”

Inhofe asked Gilday to weigh in, since “this is going to be dumped in your lap.”

Gilday said “I share your concern” and said that, while as many as four elevators may be done by the end of Ford’s PSA, “it’s still unacceptable. We need all 11 elevators working in order to give us the kind of redundancy and combat readiness that the American taxpayer has invested in this ship.”

“We’ve had 23 new technologies introduced on that ship, as you know. Of those, four were immature when we commissioned Ford in 2017. We have seen progress in the launching system, the arresting gear and also with the dual-band radar. The reliability of those systems is trending in the right direction and actually where we want to be based on the last at-sea testing,” Gilday said.
“It’s the elevators, I think, that is the remaining hurdle to get over to get that ship at sea.”

Gilday vowed to be transparent with SASC on the program’s progress and that the Navy would take lessons learned from the Ford-class program and ensure that other first-in-class ships, including the ongoing Columbia-class SSBN, would not make the same mistakes in managing risk. For example, he said, the Navy did not do shore-based prototyping and testing on the elevators because they were deemed a low-risk new technology, whereas much more risk-reduction work was done on the radars, the arresting gear and the launching system due to them being considered higher risk.
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Another article from a friend about the Wildcat's teeth:

WILDCAT HMA2 HAS ITS "WINGS" TESTED!

Leonardo Helicopters at Yeovil, Somerset have been flight testing the Wildcat HMA2's "wings" this week - the wings of course, while certainly having an aerodynamic bonus, are principally to be used as this naval attack helicopter's weapon mounting stations. Such tests will of course not only involve aerodynamic and stress testing but also weapons firing under a range of conditions to ensure such can be safely and effectively used within the normal Wildcat flight envelope.

The 2 weapons under carriage test on the new mounting wings are Sea Venom and Martlet - the UK's new medium anti-ship missile (replacing Sea Skua), and light weight attack missile respectively. Both are state of the art and will provide the shipborne version of the Wildcat with a very effective and versatile punch in a range of circumstances and differing target types including overland for the Martlet.

Both missiles types and their clearance on the HMA2 are programmed for operational availability during 2020. While Wildcat will operate principally from the RN's surface combat fleet these will often be used in escort to the QE class. The Wildcat will also operate off the new QE carriers too with such weapons. The first comment shows the flight global link to the Flight Test activity.

A variant of Martlet has also recently been tested as an additional side mount of 5 missiles on the standard 30mm auto-canons as fitted to the RN surface combat fleet and the QE class.

Both missiles types and their clearance on the HMA2 are programmed for operational availability during 2020. While Wildcat will operate principally from the RN's surface combat fleet these will often be used in escort to the QE class. The Wildcat HMA2 armed with 10 Martlet and 4 Sea Venom ASMs - reflecting the much greater payload capability of the Wildcat compared with its Lynx predecessor.67439481_10156251220291481_1347893851406204928_n.jpg 46503275_10156509811071355_2256861166355611648_n.jpg AIR_Future_Lynx_Concept_Naval_lg.jpg
 
... Sea Venom and Martlet - the UK's new medium anti-ship missile (replacing Sea Skua), and light weight attack missile respectively. Both are state of the art and will provide the shipborne version of the Wildcat with a very effective and versatile punch ...
Warhead 30 kg (66 lb)
Speed High-subsonic
according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

= "punch" roughly of a 5" shell (you may nitpick about modern explosives or whatever LOL)
 
Top