Stennis Fighters Go Head-to-Head with RMAF MiGS in Pacific

• storywolf

  24 Sep 04, 01:30

  Originally posted by arburthen?:

  Actually this concept of having a LST as a potential carrier is not new. During the 80's I saw a pictorial concept for a RAF carrier without use of runways or ski jumps but using mechanical cranes to lift harriers port side and launching them.

  Yes you are right, think they even did real testing of it, it work , but in the end it sorts of found not really that effective.
  
  But a LST is design for its LST role, converting it into a carrier is not a good ideal. First you are taking away something important its LST function. Next you cannot change it much, there is just 1 to 2 landing space for a harrier and a hanger only. So no matter what you do, you cannot get more then 2 harrier on board, so it will never be able to be consider a aircraft carrier.
  
• storywolf

  24 Sep 04, 15:42

  Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:

  even if we get LST-carriers so what??
  operation effectiveness oso much lower then a nitmitz class..
  carry say 5 or 6 planes..very little for air cover and missions..
  that means u need to have RSAF + RSN , if kena torpedoed worser..
  1 JSF.. = $40 million x 5 .. = $200 million + the crews + the ship
  however , i think its ok to let JSF land on the LST...as in refueling and stuffs..
  don't really want to have JSFs based on the LST..
  best if we can make more pads for F-35 to land..on the southern islands..

  In the first place for a ship to operate an aircraft it depend on the strengthen structure and hanger. for something that have a LST role , the most you can have is one or 2 planes.
  
  Well sad to say that is not enough for ship or air defense bascially it is for show, also for the conversion cost to support airplane on LST is not wise as there is no saving in term of cost of scale, which is super expensive.
  
  Why in the first place you want to land to refuel ? when you have KC-135 already.