Why USMC does not use Skyjump for their carriers?

[artik]

Why USMC does not use Skyjump for STOVL planes like Harrier for their carriers?

British had Skyjumps on all Harrier operating carriers and they built for Queen Elizabeth class of the carrier for F-35B. It clearly increases the capacity and the range of the planes. Why USMC does not use such technique - especially when it is relatively cheap to implement?

Harrier Operations of HMS Illustrios:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddwL3jDNv_I

[mthrockmor]

My guess (others will likely correct) is that the primary mission of our "carriers" is rotary aviation, not jump jets. Having a jump would take up a quarter of the deck, which then cannot be used for craphooks, Stallions, Seacobras, Hueys, Seahawks and the likes. When the Marines need some serious coverage they get a strike pack of Hornets off a Nimitz.

My somewhat informed guess.

Better answer?

[Blinder]

Good answers here:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?94886-USN-LHA-LHD-question-why-no-ski-jump

I was going to say because we like to do things the hard way in the Corps. But this link above makes more sense.

[Bodhi]

No ski jumps on US stuff because they look silly. 

[artik]

Good answers here:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?94886-USN-LHA-LHD-question-why-no-ski-jump

I was going to say because we like to do things the hard way in the Corps. But this link above makes more sense.

Excellent source!

Quotation from there of a Marine pilot flying off the HMS Illustrious deck:

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.”

No ski jumps on US stuff because they look silly.  

Actually I love how Skyjump looks - it make the carriers "streamlined" - especially of the Russian origin with big sky-jumps

[Rich46yo]

I think they are more strategic and economics driven differences then philosophical.

The mighty RN, while its lost none of its professionalism and quality, had to learn to find better ways to squeeze capability from their $$. The answer was sloped decks and a fabulous design achievement in the Harrier. Of course the sloped deck aids in giving the limited CVs available more capability. The Harrier is a fine Jabo as well as being able to hold her own in fleet air protection.

It was simply the best option available given her limited budget. It proved good enough to travel across and Atlantic and with a little luck beat a better Air Force then many gave the Argies credit for. And it was able to support the troops coming ashore.

The Soviets meanwhile built a surface navy to support the break away of a under water navy into the North Atlantic convoy lanes and interdict NATO resupply that would allow them to over run western Europe. Her CVs were also tasked with this mission. Power projection did not interest them with a surface fleet. Tho now I'd say that has changed and they deploy their CVs, I think they have two, as flag wavers and are more interested in standard naval deployments. Mostly in environments, should it come to war, they could not survive in. Not against the USN.

China's interest, and only interest, is Asia. That and protecting their trade routes. They want to push the USN and allies away with an "offense in depth" of which her CVs will only be a small component. But they realize as expensive as they are they are important to power projection. Im betting they will be the next navy with standard Carriers. Because they realize the obvious, an amphibious assault ship will never be an aircraft carrier no matter how they outfit it or what they call it.

An amphibious assault ship  is a combat system designed and optimized to project and sustain land power from the sea.   This  system is not designed to control the seas or the skies from which it operates. For that it needs the super carrier which carries a large component of A/E/W, tanker, heavy strike aircraft,drones, and the associate surface and underwater assets needed to control the air, sea, and space in the theater the amphib ship needs in order to conduct her mission. They are different ships with different jobs and capabilities whether or not you throw a curved deck on one or not. Nothing will replace the sortie rate, launch weights, or ability to control the air space as a super carrier has, along with the armada of the CVBG.

The Brits gambled with the Argies. They won but it was a gamble. Thats why they left open the option of a standard catapult setup on their new CVs.

So we dont put sloped deaks on our LHDs/LHAs cause we dont have to. We wouldnt risk them without air superiority, most of all their marine/amphib component. They are different ships with different missions. To deploy marines ashore, resupply them, medvac them...ect you need a large rotary wing component. We dont want to tie up the deck space of a amphib ship to control air space a super carrier is much better at doing. Along with deep strike missions.

[Gman]

Those are all good points in the above post

The USN/USMC assault ship's complement of Harriers are only meant to operate from that deck from very close range to their shore targets, typically with the support of at least one CVN's air wing as well.  Also, the Harriers the USMC used, by their doctrine, wouldn't even be operating off ship for long, as their primary goal was to get enough of a foothold with the beach head from the troops the AV8B were supporting, to allow the construction of the rapidly deployable air fields the USMC used for the jump jets.  So, the $ and space the ski jump would take up would just detract from the resupply efforts of the helo's, ferrying supplies and ammunition to the Marine ground forces, which is a far more important task, the logistics, than the amount of support the AV8Bs could ever provide from that deck.  I'm sure that if other countries like the UK, when they had them still, used Harriers, they would prefer the ski jump in order to have larger loads and safety margins for their fighters, as they fit into the overall picture differently than they did with the US forces.  Typically the ski jump equipped navies relied on their Harrier air wing for a LOT more stuff than the Marine Harriers were tasked with, as again, they didn't have an air wing from a CVN backing them up during operations/exercises. 

Anyone watched the "Ark Royal" 10 episode or so series from a few years back? It's on Netflix in certain countries, the VPN I use I can see the Netflix from about a dozen different nations, and several have this series.  It's excellent, and the USMC operated their Harriers from the Brit ship in one episode as well, and commented on this specific thing. 

I hate to bring the F35 up again, as it is such a contentious issue here, but IMO the F35B will give the dozen or so ships capable of carrying it, besides the CVNs, a HUGE, massive increase in capability.  A fighter more stealthy than the F117 by far, which is by all accounts from pilots an order of magnitude easier to fly than the Harrier, with more range and far more weapons than the Harrier.  Now these ships, depending on the mission, can act as pretty well equipped carriers on their own right, not just helo transport pads with a few very short range lightly loaded attack fighters, but a serious, serious threat to any potential enemy, be it naval or land based.   

The USN will be using the CATOBAR system as opposed to ski jump/STOVL for a long time, it'll be interesting to see this new class of CVN, and how the new type of catapult will work out in the long term.  I've seen videos of it working launching the F35C, but that's from the land based tests. 

[Greebo]

I wonder if the reluctance of the USN top brass to put ski ramps on assault carriers is more of a political decision. Assuming they did fit them some appropriations committee senator might say "you don't need another nuclear super carrier, with the ramps fitted the Navy and USMC could use assault carriers with V/STOL F-35s to supplement the existing fleet."

[artik]

The USN/USMC assault ship's complement of Harriers are only meant to operate from that deck from very close range to their shore targets, typically with the support of at least one CVN's air wing as well.  Also, the Harriers the USMC used, by their doctrine, wouldn't even be operating off ship for long, as their primary goal was to get enough of a foothold with the beach head from the troops the AV8B were supporting, to allow the construction of the rapidly deployable air fields the USMC used for the jump jets.  So, the $ and space the ski jump would take up would just detract from the resupply efforts of the helo's, ferrying supplies and ammunition to the Marine ground forces, which is a far more important task, the logistics, than the amount of support the AV8Bs could ever provide from that deck...

Good point but...

A good example when fully loaded Harrier require 750feet for flattop takeoff and only about 450 feet with the ramp not taking in account the safety point. So if you do operate STOVL planes you can end with much more space available for routine operation because it would need less space for the takeoff.

Another point that (if all the promises about F-35 being as good as F-16/F-18 are true) is that adding a ramp for F-35B operation you can vastly improve its abilities - basically the USMC small carrier would be able to provide both air defense and strike support efficiently without a need of Nimitz class CV. Having a ramp improves both payload and the range of the plane...

So why not?

[Rich46yo]

So why not?

Why send all those troops into a combat zone without the proper air support only a super carrier can give?

[TheCrazyOrange]

The USN already has the nimitz class. We would be idiots to undertake any major operations without them.

That's like launching a major offensive, and not using Abrams tanks just because they guzzle gas.

[artik]

The USN already has the nimitz class. We would be idiots to undertake any major operations without them.

That's like launching a major offensive, and not using Abrams tanks just because they guzzle gas.

Now I ask a big question...

If USN has the Nimitz right... why Marines need their own fighters? Harriers today, F-35B tomorrow and Phantoms yesterday - Nimitz class carriers can always provide a support?

Maybe they need only helicopter platforms that would be much cheaper?

Why USMC needs F-35B at all in such a case? It would be much cheaper to develop a plane for Navy/USAF that wouldn't need to consider the STOVL needs?

The approach of "we have carriers, so we don't need the ramp"  opens more holes in the logical description than closes them.

[Oldman731]

Why USMC needs F-35B at all in such a case?

(raises hand) (waves hand around) (bounces in seat)

I know!  I know!

What if the carriers get sunk!

- oldman (or what if Jack Fletcher's descendant is in command of the fleet?)

[Gman]

Greebo - that is a point that I'm sure had some part to play in the decision, the funding aspects and not wanting to create ripples or rifts with regards to current policy and plans.  I hadn't thought of that, but the same sort of thing plays out in other defense sectors for certain.

Regarding the USMC and having their own aircraft - this has always been debated, and always comes down IMO to the bottom line for the USMC, which is they want to be able to operate as their own little fully capable military on their hook if they need to, and not have to rely on other branches as much as possible.  Of course, every USMC operation in history has had to have some sort of support from the other branches, but it's almost an espirit du corps type of thing sometimes I think.

Since the large numbers of assault ships are already in existence or building/funded, that alone is a good reason to equip the USMC with F35B's, to take advantage of these smaller yet still very capable decks.  Just one assault ship with F35B's, troops, and landing craft of various types is a very powerful force all on its own, and like Oldman said, due to unpredictable circumstances, the CVN may not always be available, in range, or even alive still to support those Marines.

[Rich46yo]

The USMC have a history of ground support they will never give up without a fight. Every Marine pilot in one of those jets went thru boot camp with the grunts and are both highly motivated and skilled in supporting their own. Every marine on the ground would rather see a Marine pilot supporting them. The USMC would never give up CAS of their own. Never! They are a corp built on traditions.

It really has nothing to do with "if the carrier gets sunk". If the CV gets sunk its bad for everyone. The marines bring everything with them to win the fight and while they tolerate the navy I dont think they like relying on other services to accomplish their mission. "I seem to have posted at the same time as G-man which is why I said much of the same thing".