Not on it's current planned form, that's for sure.

Then again define "flexibility":hmm:

What makes you say that?

Everything that has been removed from the original design concept along with the fixed wing aircraft variant destined to fly off them for starters.

Gladrag - have to disagree with that (though not the logic behind it). The original design concepts done in 1996-ish IIRC all looked like a CVS that had been fed steroids and the f/w assumption of choice back then was what was known as SSF (STOVL strikefighter) - essentially the MDD a/c. Imagine the surprise when that didn't make it to demonstrator stage!

As for having a tea-kettle, that idea was binned around the same time, without much detailed study as I recall, largely on the basis that the USN were having an absolute nightmare disposing of their CGN and SSN/SSBN. One of the driving factors was the perceived difficulty and expense in disposal - remember we now have upwards of 15 decommissioned boats sat in Rosyth or Guzz, some of which have been there since 1980 or so.

In terms of capability no-one would dispute that a CVN would be somwhat better than an F76-powered ship, but as GBZ points out, there would be major hits elsewhere. The thing that would really kill it would be the need for more than two ships (given reactor overhaul and refuelling timescales - yes it would need refuelling for a 50yr life) to guarantee availability which was one of the planks of the ST(S) dossier - two big ships for the price of three smaller ones based on much improved (?) / reduced maintenance demands.

More to the point, due to the endless dithering over letting the contract, we're now in a position where there is no plan B and no time / money to generate one. UK Maritime aviation has essentially bet the farm on CVF and to a lesser extent Dave B. The ship is at least big enough to adapt to most things and that's it's big plus point - I'm sure there will be a number of emb8ggerances due to the h'apporth of tar savings that will be applied, but they can be rectified over time.

And that should be the ONE and ONLY concern.

Disposal of life ex assets, whilst obviously important, should not lead to the emasculation of the end product.

Have the MOD (RN) planners been taken over by treehuggers??

Its a good thing the price of F76 isn't going to rise over the planned 50 years the CVF's will be operational for.

But as the USMC is finding out, Dave B is a big aircraft and hard to support on a mid-sized ship - particularly along with transport helos, grunts, grunt food &c.

False, no, not true at all. You just made that up


For a "commando ship" role you'd be better off with a smaller, CAS-optimized "Harrier III".

No.

The USA’s New LHA-R Ships: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault (updated)

21-Oct-2008 11:21 EDT
Related Stories: Americas - USA, Contracts - Awards, Contracts - Modifications, Eng. Control Systems, Expeditionary Warfare, FOCUS Articles, Forces - Marines, GE, New Systems Tech, Northrop-Grumman, Policy - Doctrine, Policy - Procurement, Power Projection, R&D - Contracted, Raytheon, Surface Ships - Combat
http://ads.watershed-publishing.com/...&cb=fc762fafbe
Advertisement

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...SHIP_LHA-R.jpgLHA-R Concept
(click to view full)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...E_DII_Mark.gif
Modern U.S. Navy Amphibious Assault Ships project power and maintain presence by serving as the cornerstone of the Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) / Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). A key element of the Seapower 21 doctrine pillars of Sea Strike and Sea Basing, these LHA/LHD ships transport, launch, and land elements of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) via a combination of LCAC hovercraft, amphibious transports and vehicles, helicopters, and aircraft.
Designed to project power and maintain presence, LHA-Replacement (LHA-R, aka. LH-X and now the America Class) large deck amphibious assault ships will replace the LHA-1 Tarawa Class. They’re based on the more modern LHD Wasp Class design, but remove the LHD’s landing craft and well deck. The end product is essentially a revival of the World War 2 escort carrier concept, with integrated berthing, cargo, and light vehicle spaces for Marines. LHA-R ships will be almost 80 feet longer than USS Wasp and 10 feet wider, since they don’t have to fit through the Panama Canal. As a result, these ships will weigh in at 50,000 tons/ 45,700t fully loaded rather than 42,400t full load for LHD 8. Though DID uses the term “escort carriers” due to the size of their aerial complement, note that their overall displacement will be larger than France’s 43,000t FNS Charles De Gaulle nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
DID’s FOCUS articles offer in-depth, updated looks at significant military programs of record, and this is DID’s FOCUS Article concerning the America Class LHA/CVLs. The latest development is the formal selection of its propulsion system, which is not exactly a surprise…

...
Displaying 284 of 2,808 words (about 8 pages)

The USA’s New LHA-R Ships: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault (updated)

The part about hovercraft is wrong -- Elmo.

Sheesh, Elmo. Your comments are terse, if a little free from backup data.

Actually, as your next post makes clear, the new LHA-6 (America-class) gives up the well deck to add aviation space. It's not just Dave B - it's the CH-53K and V-22 as well.

Consequently, if you really wanted a full-spectrum ship including fixed-wing CAS jets - or to add CAS-type jets to an LHD - you might really look at the need for stealth and supersonic speed, which are vital requirements for CAS in the same way as playing the banjo is a key qualification for a garbageman. That's what I mean by "Harrier III".

Actually, as your next post makes clear, the new LHA-6 (America-class) gives up the well deck to add aviation space. It's not just Dave B - it's the CH-53K and V-22 as well.

(1) No room for both well deck and full length hangar deck on same boat, even with 50K tons displacement;

(2) Sea surface amphib. assault operations conflict with rotary wing ops from same ship -- prefer to launch V-22's or helos from much further offshore;

(3) Who says lift fan F-35 only for close air support? Not Navy Dept.

Right, the Marines are acquiring deep strike and air dominance missions. Vaguely credible back in the day of the STOVL Strike Fighter, in the Cold War, but today? If there's a real air threat you send a CV.

V/STOL
 

Show me an F-35 A or C model which can work from a Forward Operating Base, with the carrier safely out of the way.

Remember, a bright guy in the Argentinian forces converted a ship-launched Exocet .38 to fire from a truck ( although on the wrong side, I've always felt he deserved a medal for that, though the victims on HMS Glamorgan might disagree ).

Even the Khat-happy Somalis might get something similar one day, and be a danger after the first few tries with the thing pointing the opposite direction towards their chums.

Harrier is saved?!
 

Well, according to the article on the MOD website, the Harrier is going to be supported for the next 10 years. I guess this thread is now null and void. Nothing to worry about chaps - the jump jet will see out the remainder of its time until F-35 arrives. :D

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...ewContract.htm

The correct link refers only to

The link's down, now. Perhaps they changed their minds!

Why does the RN receive the Royal Navy treatment but the Royal Air Force receives the RAF treatment in those MOD News briefs????

Jacko - perhaps our posts crossed in the ether, but as of this moment, the correct link I put in my post a few moments ago certainly works...

Good news indeed - anyone out there able to confirm (guess!) how many engines (and therefore aircraft) this support contract will support ...

Well the idea was to save 1bn by scrapping harrier soooo 198m is around 1/5 of the saving therefore 1/5 of the harrier fleet? (not sure of the overall cost of running harrier to 2019 but in 2002 Sea harrier was quoted as 109m to 2012)

Probably missing something here

Al