![america-03[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8nDQixH.jpg "america-03[1].jpg")
What is the point of smaller flat top amphibious assault ships when you could just build more 100,000 ton super carriers?
They cost 4 billion dollars each, they aren't much cheaper than a super carrier. If they were building 30 Fords instead of 11, no doubt they would be quite a bit cheaper.
>>29130441
You build more carriers, then you'll need to build more aircraft to fly off of them, then you'll need to train crew to run them, then you'll need to build more escorts to protect them, and then you've got to pay operation costs. It's not as simple as "X amount of money spent on this could have been used to buy Y many of these".
That said, the America was a mistake.
>>29130441
Because the Marines have different needs from the Navy.
>>29130473
Need escorts to protect an amphibious assault ship as well.
Though thats largely doctrinal, if it had its own missiles, its own ASW choppers/planes, it could function adequately on its own.
>>29130473
Why was the America a mistake?
>>29130532
Probably because the first 2 were built without well decks to maximize hangar space.
>>29130441
>the only thing that matters in life is how much something costs! everything else is totally irrelevant!
>>29130532
It (and it's follow-up, the Tripoli), did away with the well deck to hold more aviation facilities. This rather cripples it in it's designated role of helping deliver a MAGTF. Future ships of the class are going to have a well deck.
>>29130591
uhhh
when it comes to having things, cost and cost effectiveness IS all that matters
>>29130441
The purchase cost is nothing in comparison to the cost to operate the thing over the next several decades.
>>29130473
>That said, the America was a mistake.
As a ship, no.
As a nation, yes.
>>29130473
>>29130592
>>29130666
It's only a mistake in that it was an admission that the Marine Corps has no reason to exist. Well decks were re-added to continue the meme that the Corps has a mission and might one day actually execute that mission.
>>29130666
>when it comes to having things, cost and cost effectiveness IS all that matters
why would you post something this stupid?
wasn't just thinking of it bad enough? now people reading this thread are going to go "Holy shit" and roll their eyes when they get to your post. was that your honest intention here?
>>29130765
So there is some unique purpose that a 45kt amphibious assault ship does, that a diesel powered Ford loaded with the same marines & helicopters & landing craft couldn't do?
Theres no intrinsic operating cost in having a 100,000 ton carrier vs 45kt.
Even just having the extra space to experiment with more drones, extra hangar room for maintenance, automation to reduce crew needs, etc would all be beneficial.
If modern ships are going to be filled with billions of dollars of electronics, then we need to build them bigger & more capable.
>>29130482
The marines literally fuck up everything. See 'F35'. Can't we 86 these losers and roll them into the other branches that are actually doing something to defend america?
>>29130848
>Theres no intrinsic operating cost in having a 100,000 ton carrier vs 45kt.
>>29132306
An empty steel hull does not have an operating cost
It's the equipment put in it, that has the purchase & operating cost
>>29132337
>An empty steel hull does not have an operating cost
Come on, you can stop now. Your ruse of pretending to be retarded was fun while it lasted.
>>29132356
If you took every naval ship and added 50,000 tons of ballast to it
Would it magically have higher operating costs?
>>29132507
Hey, you know what you call a kid with Downs syndrome that's late to class?
>Tardy
>>29130764
hmmmm .....
FUCK YOU!
>>29132536
You are the tard if you can't understand my point
>>29130441
Ford's have no space for Marines or their equipment.
>>29130566
>>29130592
Fascinating, almost like its never been done before.
>>29132507
>Would it magically have higher operating costs?
Yes, because you'd have to raise them off the ocean floor where they've sunk to due to having 50,000 tonnes of ballast. Then you'd have to remove the ballast and then repair the ship. This would require money, lots of it, genius.
>>29130441
Maybe because they aren't meant only for carrying aircraft? Did that thought ever cross your mind? For the most part they're filled with Marines and their equipment, not planes. And they need well decks.
>>29133719
well decks are a meme, theres really no point for them, billion dollar military ships should not be filled with cargo, or marines for that matter.
The ESD that they are building is more appropriate for that
>>29133950
Anon, please. This is a nautical thread, you'll need bigger bait than that.
>>29130754
This.
>>29133950
Well decks allow the use of m-1 abrams for landings. The marines have equipment that can't be carried by helicopter.
>>29132337
It does when you put it in the fucking sea
Not that ships are empty hulls anyway you vegetable
>>29136981
3.5 billion dollar amphibious assault ships should not be filled up with cargo like LAVS, AAV's, and m1's
A cheaper version of the Ford with the expensive stuff & nuclear reactor stripped out would have been much better.
>>29130754
How about you fucking kill yourself you goddamn God-less communist heathen. Go and jerk off Noam Chompski in hell.
>>29138306
>>nuclear reactor stripped out
How do you propose to move the ship, out of curiosity? The energy density of nuclear fuel can't be beat... You'd have to either have dedicated fuel tenders following the ship, or devote a MASSIVE amount of the ship to fuel storage. Either way, it's not really effective.
>>29138648
http://cnss.no/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/fuel-consumption-web.pdf
according to this
fuel consumption per hour largely flatlines over 40k tons
It's not like the escorts are nuclear, so they are constrained by fuel needs too
Until they produce actual 3rd generation nuclear naval reactors that aren't so expensive to produce or operate, or refuel/decommision, conventional is likely better.
>>29130592
>It (and it's follow-up, the Tripoli), did away with the well deck to hold more aviation facilities.
So use those ships as light aircraft carriers and other ships with well decks as MUHREEN delivery vehicles. Seems okay to me.
>>29140938
If they were going to do that they may as well have done away with one or two of the helicopter landing pads and added a ramp. As it is it's just half-assed.
>>29132213
What's wrong with the F35, besides stale memes?
>>29138306
They're amphibious assault ships. They definitely should be carrying the tools to put on an amphibious assault.
>>29141019
I always wondered how hard it would be to design a retractable ramp LHD/LHA ships. I mean a ramp that could be deployed and displace the front one or two landing spots but that could be retracted/folded flat when jump jets aren't taking off.
>>29138849
The America class also has a hybrid propulsion system. gas turbine for higher speed and diesel for lower speed.
>>29132337
>An empty steel hull does not have an operating cost
>It's the equipment put in it, that has the purchase & operating cost
A USN carrier, unlike your head, is decidedly not "empty"
>>29141019
>ramp
Those impose a ton of stress on an aircraft and even when we were operating Harriers we just never incorporated ramps into our doctrine. A Harrier can take off with a full load given a long enough roll-out for a STOL take-off, so they don't really need 'em.
>>29140938
They are shitty light carriers because of all the space for muhreens and their equipment
Why build 3.5 billion dollar light carriers then ruin them by trying to also be cargo ships?
Should be super carrier sized Amphibious Assault ships, which could actually operate a meaningful amount of F-35C's, along with their normal helicopter load.
Landing ships & bulk cargo carried by other cheaper ships, along with actual landing craft, something only the army maintains.
>>29141282
And did I say that?
>>29141512
>they don't have enough room for marines
>they are shitty carriers because they have room for marines
I HOPE YOU LITERALLY FUCKING DIE
>>29142501
Marines are cargo
cargo should go on cargo ships
not warships
>>29132551
Good argument. I'm convinced.
