Key differences between LHA 6 and the LHD class ships include an enlarged hangar deck, enhanced aviation maintenance facilities, increased aviation fuel capacity, additional aviation storerooms, removal of the well deck, and an electronically reconfigurable C4ISR suite.
I've read about that and later ships in the class will have well deck too so at that point, won't the difference just be that LHA is a bigger LHD?
LHA-8+ go back to having a well deck and lose some stores/aviation facilities to do that. They still have improved aviation facilities and a smaller well deck compared to older LHDs so I guess the greater emphasis on aviation is the differentiating factor even if it's a blurry line.
I don't think the Navy expects to conduct amphibious operations that don't rely primarily on airlift capability for most of their missions. The only things would require amphibious operations would be for the real heavy stuff that can't just be brought in by rotor-craft and contested landings and those are likely too rare to justify accommodating them over improving air capabilities.
It was more or less suicidal to do an opposed landing in the 40’s before guided munitions were a thing. It was only done because there wasn’t a viable alternative. Boats have only advanced so much and while the most modern landing craft are pretty impressive they’re not going to do too well against missiles or even just autocannon fire. It is a bit disappointing that we’ll probably never see large scale amphibious operations ever again though.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>we’ll probably never see large scale amphibious operations ever again though
we may if China is stupid or desperate enough to try invading Taiwan
4 months ago
Anonymous
They're not, the recent rocket forces purge basically proves they can't do shit for at LEAST a decade, probably longer, and by that point the US navy will have the DDG(X) out in the pacific and all the new unmanned and optionally manned platforms they're currently testing out as well.
China's best opportunity was ~2026-28 and the rocket forces being totally inept is likely just the tip of the corruption iceberg and there i no way in hell they can get ready by even 2030, let alone 2026-28.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Even if they did it’d be over very quickly and no one would ever try one again. Would be a very horrible death for those involved, having to bail out of a sinking landing craft in full combat load probably at least a mile away from shore, situation too hectic to hope for any kind of rescue. I doubt China even supplies them with life vests. Would probably make for some good kino though.
Opposed landings are pretty much dead in the face of land-based ATGMs, drones, and accurate/guided artillery. That means landings are restricted to undefended beaches. It's a lot easier to find a way to sneak a bunch of helos or tilts over an unguarded bit of shoreline than it is to find a proper beach fit for landings that isn't defended.
That doesn't mean there's no use for LCACs, AAVs, etc. Just that the "traditional" use of the Marines (at least for the last 90 years) is largely over.
All marine fliers. Also anyone who hasn't seen the marines practicing firing Himars off the deck of these is missing out. Honestly the USMC reorg gives me hope our military hasn't gone full moron.
Key differences between LHA 6 and the LHD class ships include an enlarged hangar deck, enhanced aviation maintenance facilities, increased aviation fuel capacity, additional aviation storerooms, removal of the well deck, and an electronically reconfigurable C4ISR suite.
I've read about that and later ships in the class will have well deck too so at that point, won't the difference just be that LHA is a bigger LHD?
LHA-8+ go back to having a well deck and lose some stores/aviation facilities to do that. They still have improved aviation facilities and a smaller well deck compared to older LHDs so I guess the greater emphasis on aviation is the differentiating factor even if it's a blurry line.
I guess it's so the USN can make use of more F-35B? It's still weird that they basically make more CVL at the cost of amphibious landing operations.
I don't think the Navy expects to conduct amphibious operations that don't rely primarily on airlift capability for most of their missions. The only things would require amphibious operations would be for the real heavy stuff that can't just be brought in by rotor-craft and contested landings and those are likely too rare to justify accommodating them over improving air capabilities.
>no more beach landing in modern era
I don't know how to feel about this
It was more or less suicidal to do an opposed landing in the 40’s before guided munitions were a thing. It was only done because there wasn’t a viable alternative. Boats have only advanced so much and while the most modern landing craft are pretty impressive they’re not going to do too well against missiles or even just autocannon fire. It is a bit disappointing that we’ll probably never see large scale amphibious operations ever again though.
>we’ll probably never see large scale amphibious operations ever again though
we may if China is stupid or desperate enough to try invading Taiwan
They're not, the recent rocket forces purge basically proves they can't do shit for at LEAST a decade, probably longer, and by that point the US navy will have the DDG(X) out in the pacific and all the new unmanned and optionally manned platforms they're currently testing out as well.
China's best opportunity was ~2026-28 and the rocket forces being totally inept is likely just the tip of the corruption iceberg and there i no way in hell they can get ready by even 2030, let alone 2026-28.
Even if they did it’d be over very quickly and no one would ever try one again. Would be a very horrible death for those involved, having to bail out of a sinking landing craft in full combat load probably at least a mile away from shore, situation too hectic to hope for any kind of rescue. I doubt China even supplies them with life vests. Would probably make for some good kino though.
Opposed landings are pretty much dead in the face of land-based ATGMs, drones, and accurate/guided artillery. That means landings are restricted to undefended beaches. It's a lot easier to find a way to sneak a bunch of helos or tilts over an unguarded bit of shoreline than it is to find a proper beach fit for landings that isn't defended.
That doesn't mean there's no use for LCACs, AAVs, etc. Just that the "traditional" use of the Marines (at least for the last 90 years) is largely over.
LHAs and LHDs normally serve marine aviation and amphib. CVNs serve the navy.
All marine fliers. Also anyone who hasn't seen the marines practicing firing Himars off the deck of these is missing out. Honestly the USMC reorg gives me hope our military hasn't gone full moron.
Japan has some interesting proposals for a LHD class too
>single elevator
>single mast
lol no
I see two elevators. One off the side and one in the middle of the deck.
One ends with an D, the other an A.
Philippines LPD
LHDs can land stuff on beaches.
LHAs are just gimped carriers.
Nope, LHA 8+ have well decks and can land shit on the beaches too.
The better question is why they named the Wasp class LHDs in the first place; they're not substantially different from the Tarawas, the first LHAs.
You can’t be a serious amphibious force without one or the other.