The U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA-6) approaches Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, for a scheduled port visit. America was traveling through the U.S. Southern Command and U.S. 4th Fleet areas of responsibility on its maiden transit, "America visits the Americas." The ship was scheduled to be ceremoniously commissioned on 11 October 2014 in San Francisco, California (USA). Wikipedia
Franz-Stefan Gady, The Diplomat: US Navy Builds Largest-Ever Amphibious Assault Ship for F-35 Fighters
The America-class will be the size of other countries’ aircraft carriers.
Over at military.com, Kris Osborne reports that the assembly of the second America-class amphibious assault ship, USS Tripoli, is going according to plan, with a third of initial construction already complete.
The ship “is approximately 30% complete. Fabrication has started on 211 units, 97% of all units, and 84 grand blocks are erected — 47% of the total,” according to a U.S. Navy spokesperson who provided Osborne with a written statement.
Scheduled for launch in in July 2017 and with a tentative induction date set for December 18, the ship is specifically designed to accommodate Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighters, along a host of other aircraft such as MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, CH-53 Super Stallions, and UH-1Y Huey helicopters.
WNU editor: What I find remarkable about this story is atht the U.S. Navy still has faith in the Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighters and what will be its role for these ships .... even with all of its problems .... Does The U.S. Navy Cares If The F-35 Cannot Win In A 'Dogfight'?
What is amazing to me, is that you are so constistently against the F-35, that you do not seem to realize that this ship carries the F-35B (VTOL). This aircraft is orders of magnitude better than the Harrier (twice the range, 30% more speed, twice the ordinace load, stealth, advanced sensors, etc). Now, regarding the America Class vessels. These were from the outset set up to carry an enhanced air assault component (MV22's, CH53's, UH1Y's and AH1Z's). This was done at the expense of LCAC'S, by deleting the welldeck, to enhance aircraft hangar capacity.
ReplyDeleteThe point of this ship is to have an enhanced capability to deliver forces via air when a slow amphibious landing with AAV's (8 mph in water),would be too costly in Marine lives. This may not always be necessary solution, having this option matters, because the lives of our Marines matter. Also, if we are going to have a Marine air assault element of this size, we owe those Marines the F-35B rather than the aging Harriers, for their organic fighter support element (area defense and CAS).
I do not understand why you only publish information that primarily casts the F-35 in a bad light, without any articles covering alternate views.This does not do your blog, or your readers any service. During a recent combat tests with FULLY EQUIPPED F-35B's (compared to the test you reference, using an F-35A unit not fully equipped for air combat), 4 F-35 B's went up agains a flight of 9 agressor aircraft ( http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-decision-4-bs-take-out-9-attackers/ ). Of note, Marine Lt. General Jon Davis said "It went very poorly for the bad guys". "The F-35's faced a threat that we have never put an F-16 or a Harrier against.” The F-35Bs, he said, did a “great job.” Davis (a pilot himself) also said " “I love the F-16. It was a great airplane. Still is pretty good, but i would not want to be in a fight against an F-35.”
There are a lot of very smart people working on this aircraft, and there are also a lot of smart people who do not agree with their vision. But, this was the same situation for the development of the F15 Eagle, the F-18F Super Hornet, and the F-16. Go back and read some of the bad press for these aircraft when they where in development --- they were deemed awful boondoggles by their detractors as well. In fact, the F-16's pilots called it the 'Flying Lawn Dart". Nowadays, all of these aircraft are judged great successes. So, why not give the F-35, at least the courtesy of balanced reporting?
He is giving it a balanced reporting, something fanboys never do. F-35 is a failure according to cost. Live with it.
DeleteThank you Anon. I know there is a lot of good news on the F-35, and in my Military and Intelligence Updates I am always reporting and posting on it. There is also a lot of bad news .... and it is there that I post the details because the official outlets do not.
ReplyDelete" F-35 is a failure according to cost. Live with it." - What needs to be asked Sebastian, is ... failure according to cost, relative to what?. The US, and every other wealthy Nation State (e.g. Germany, the UK, France etc.) spends a fortune on it's military, with no regard for what it gets. The reason for this is that ALL of these countries have the same issue. That being, highly skilled companies and workforces, want to be paid highly. No more, No less. It does not matter if it is Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, BAE, or Dassault. To give you a current example, read this article in the London Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/
ReplyDeleteYou will note that the Brits are lamenting the cost of their Eurofighter Typhoon MORE, than folks on this side of the pond, are lamenting the cost of the F-35. Let me give you a few quotes: A) "UK taxpayers will have shelled out no less than £215m for each of our 107 jets – that's $350m at today's rates, rather more than the US taxpayers have been made to pay for each of their 185 Raptor superfighters" B) "The Raptor is a hugely more sophisticated and powerful aircraft, and is actually – astonishingly – somewhat cheaper, despite the fact that it is being made in much smaller numbers than the Eurofighter!" and C) "The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is specifically designed with ground attack in mind, and unlike the Eurofighter/Typhoon it is a stealth aircraft – fourth-generation stealth, in fact. As soon as the RAF (and the Navy) get the F-35, the Typhoon will certainly no longer be the aircraft of choice for ground attack – and quite likely not for air-to-air combat either, at least in some circumstances."
Then there is the cost overrun fiasco known as the A400 "Grizzly" (cause it took a bite out of Angela Merkels wallet). As you can see, we are MUCH better of on our side of the pond!. At least our cost overruns result in actual combat power (granted it is overpriced). This is something the Russians would love to have. Because when they spend their hard earned money, it usually does not result in the promised capability (can you say T50). The fact is, during peactime, all weapons systems cost a lot, because the military beaurocracy of all countries, loves to gold-plate things.