Ski jump carriers

[JAD1920]

What is the advantage/ disadvantage to the Soviet and British Designs of ski jumps? I see that no past US carriers had ski jumps. Thanks in advance.

[Starfirehover]

Gives a slight advantage in the ability to launch an aircraft in a heavier configuration than from a flat deck during a rolling takeoff.

Americans went with a catapult instead of rolling takeoffs. 

[NutrientibusMeaGallus]

 

There's always that.... 

[Rythcan]

wonder if you could use those carriers for the Red-Bull Flugtag?

[NutrientibusMeaGallus]

I think one of those type of carriers (at least) was used for a motorcycle jump stunt back in the 80's or 90's.. Can't remember the name of the stunt guy or where it was done or anything...

[UncleDaddy]

What is the advantage/ disadvantage to the Soviet and British Designs of ski jumps? I see that no past US carriers had ski jumps. Thanks in advance.

 

Ski Jump carriers cost alot less to build, cost an extra 1.5b then theres maintence for the catapult system too.  Disadvantage is planes need more take off room so you have less useable deck space to have planes waiting to launch.  Also I'm not sure if drones can even launch off a ski jump carrier?

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

British =

a) save money on cost of steam catapults, 

b) steam catapults only viable on large carriers, not escort or ASW sized vessels

 

Russians = 

a) access to tech

b) suitable aircraft (catapult launch does require a heavily reinforced airframe)

 

Also I'm not sure if drones can even launch off a ski jump carrier?

 

As drone/aircraft carrier operations have only reached experimental/research stage that is hardly an issue long term

[UncleDaddy]

British =

a) save money on cost of steam catapults, 

b) steam catapults only viable on large carriers, not escort or ASW sized vessels

 

Russians = 

a) access to tech

b) suitable aircraft (catapult launch does require a heavily reinforced airframe)

 

 

As drone/aircraft carrier operations have only reached experimental/research stage that is hardly an issue long term

 

Well I know you cant launch a drone with a steam catapult because the drones are to light and it tares them up.  But the new electric magnetic catapults on the Ford class are drone friendly and have rooms to accommodate drone pilot operations.

[Peloton]

Aren't the ski-jump configurations a modern warfare design?  I think the first was in the early 70's.

[Kristoffer]

From what I can gather

 

Ski Jumps:

+ Fast simple Take-offs.

+ Cheap and Simple.

- Requires most of the deck to launch combat loaded aircraft, thus the inability to efficiently stack prepped aircraft.

- Can only fit one ski jump thus one aircraft launch at a time.

- inability to launch heavier craft or overloaded configurations, thus CAS/AWACS/Refueling option will be severely limited.

 

Catapult:

+ Ability to fit multiple launchers and launch multiple aircraft at a time (US Carriers can launch 4, and smaller aircraft the the Charles de Gaulle can fit 2 and launch 2 aircraft a time), thus ultimately more efficient than ski jumps.

+ Ability to launch heavy and overloaded aircraft.

+ Ability to launch during severe wind conditions.

+ Shorter Take offs thus you can stack prepped aircraft more effeciently.

- Requires maintenance thus ultimately not as cheap as ramps.

 

[JAD1920]

The one large Soviet carrier can launch two aircraft at one time. It is either the current flagship or the one that the Chinese retrofitted.

[Kristoffer]

The one large Soviet carrier can launch two aircraft at one time. It is either the current flagship or the one that the Chinese retrofitted.

 

That's true, but due to the shorter than usual take off with the Kuznetsov's forward ramp her SU33s cannot lift off at standard combat loads (on either of her runway), the SU33s are forced to take off with less fuel and armaments, as you'll see on videos where Russian SU33s take off from a Kuznetsov-class. In comparison, you'll see F18s with full pylons, multiple drop tanks and pods take off from a Nimitz.

 

IMO, they are a really bad carrier design, it is why they are not replicated and why even the Russians won't classify them as true aircraft carriers.

[RedBear87]

The real question is why no American LHD/LHA has ski-jumps, not even USS America which seems to prioritise air operations above everything else. Is a landing spot for three helicopters really worth it? Does it have to do with hiding from the public the fact that those things are bigger than what other countries call (at least informally) "carriers"?

[Rovert10]

The real question is why no American LHD/LHA has ski-jumps, not even USS America which seems to prioritise air operations above everything else. Is a landing spot for three helicopters really worth it? Does it have to do with hiding from the public the fact that those things are bigger than what other countries call (at least informally) "carriers"?

It's probably for two reasons.

Mission design still has the LHD/LHA ships as landing support ships meant to drop off their marines. The USN doesn't have a particular need to have these smaller carriers going full fixed wing aircraft like other nations when its already has its large fleet of supercarriers running around. Thus having the extra space for helicopters may seem more worthwhile than being better suited to launch off Harriers or F-35Bs. 

 

The other and maybe the most likely is politics

The USN doesn't want to bother trying to make a ton of smaller carriers with ski-jumps for fear that doing so would have Congress rattling its head to divert to building small ski-jump carriers. The USN wants to hold onto its supercarrier doctrine.

[SourHammer]

 

There's always that.... 

 

And there goes another 69 Dodge Charger to the scrap yard lol

 

[mariandavid]

Essentially only useful for aircraft with the capability to modify thrust direction (Harrier, F-35) - pioneered by the Royal Navy in the Hermes class light carriers and then added to the three Illustrious class ships. Remarkably useful for the Harrier - by some accounts dating from the Falklands War added 45 minutes to the loiter time while equipped for air-to-air combat. As said above baffling that the ten plus 'non aircraft carrier' amphibious aircraft carriers of the USN do not have these - the most likely argument advanced is that adding them would mean that the USN would be considered to have nearly twenty-five full size aircraft carriers which would cause Congress to turn a beady eye on them!

[blurr91]

It's probably for two reasons.

Mission design still has the LHD/LHA ships as landing support ships meant to drop off their marines. The USN doesn't have a particular need to have these smaller carriers going full fixed wing aircraft like other nations when its already has its large fleet of supercarriers running around. Thus having the extra space for helicopters may seem more worthwhile than being better suited to launch off Harriers or F-35Bs.

 

The other and maybe the most likely is politics

The USN doesn't want to bother trying to make a ton of smaller carriers with ski-jumps for fear that doing so would have Congress rattling its head to divert to building small ski-jump carriers. The USN wants to hold onto its supercarrier doctrine.

 

To add to that, LHD/LHA are primarily helicopter carriers.  The deck space is for helos.  Adding a ramp will take away the available space for helos to take off and land.

 

USN doesn't need a ramp carrier.  We have super carriers that can do everything a ramp carrier could do and then some.  Why duplicate functions at the expense of launching huge number of helos in a very short period of time?  It's like a guy who has a Ferrari already.  He needs a truck to carry as much stuff as possible.  He doesn't need a fast station wagon that's not as fast as the Ferrari nor does it carry as much stuff as the truck.

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

Essentially only useful for aircraft with the capability to modify thrust direction (Harrier, F-35) - pioneered by the Royal Navy in the Hermes class light carriers and then added to the three Illustrious class ships. Remarkably useful for the Harrier - by some accounts dating from the Falklands War added 45 minutes to the loiter time while equipped for air-to-air combat. As said above baffling that the ten plus 'non aircraft carrier' amphibious aircraft carriers of the USN do not have these - the most likely argument advanced is that adding them would mean that the USN would be considered to have nearly twenty-five full size aircraft carriers which would cause Congress to turn a beady eye on them!

I have also read that amphibious landing ships need room principally for their swing rotors, ski jumps =/ 2 parking slots. They tend to carry no more than 7/8 jets anyhow.