It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Italy Produces First F-35 Outside US

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

I get the impression that it would be more cost effective for Japan to just build a Aircraft carrier then convert there helicopters carriers.

From the new I got when in Tokyo I got the impression they are trying to move to build real aircraft carriers. Hence all the effort to change there constitution.


edit on 17-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

There's still the problem of power. Catapult and barrier systems are huge and require a lot of power to operate. Which is one reason they're on nuclear powered ships.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'll give you that for the EMALS (if it ever works
), but a modest 1-2 steam cat system of the sort installed on the CDG, the Clemenceau and any of the smaller UK/French carriers of the 60's and 70's sortieing a fleet of 20-30 aircraft wouldn't be THAT hard to power with a fairly modest boiler tacked on, especially since a Japanese carrier would almost certainly not need the range abilities of the Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, etc.

If you get past the idea that a carrier NEEDS to be a Nimitz-sized floating battlestar with 4 cats and an 80-strong air wing, it opens you up to the far more feasible world of trying to build a 21st century USS Midway or HMS Eagle, something that would be a cakewalk on a hull like the Izumo's.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

And to launch aircraft as heavy as the F-35 it will require more than "a modest boiler". Carriers this size aren't good for refitting with a CATOBAR system. If you're going to build a carrier the you're better off building it from the start, not trying to cram it in later.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

How do they compare to the jeep ( escort carriers ) of World War II. They were far smaller than the Essex class carriers ? And people doubted they could launch and recover aircraft until it was proven they could.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

There's a huge difference between launching aircraft that don't need a catapult, and cramming a CATOBAR system into a small hull that wasn't designed for it. You'd have to completely rebuild the flight deck to cut the channels for the cats, as well as the openings for the cables.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Zaphod58

How do they compare to the jeep ( escort carriers ) of World War II. They were far smaller than the Essex class carriers ? And people doubted they could launch and recover aircraft until it was proven they could.


Has anyone brought up EMALS Yet?



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's why I brought up my last post. Won't the EMALS System be a much easier retrofit? Not to mention the increased speed for take off.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

They don't have the power to run EMALS. A nuclear carrier has power to spare, a conventional doesn't.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Not yet but I'm looking to the future. Plus can't emals can be deck mounted ?

It would be a lot easier to install a nuclear reactor to power it than to install all the steam, hydraulics and extra boilers for a conventional catapult.



Edit; The Ford class carrier will have power to spare not the Nimitz class. That is why EMALS are being designed for the ford class carriers.

edit on 17-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

You'd have to almost rebuild the hull to fit a nuclear power plant. Catapults laying on the deck itself are much more vulnerable to outside forces like weather.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Installing a nuclear reactor to power one system would be much simpler than retrofitting the whole ship for a standard catapult. As to the rails being exposed to the elements the The Japanese has already beat that with currently operating maglev trains. And yes some of the trains do operate over salt water.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

But they don't operate in seas with waves 20 feet or higher, with salt water crashing over the deck.

Installing a nuclear reactor isn't as easy as "Hey plug this in here". You'd have to take up big party of the engineering spaces with the reactor, install cooling systems, monitoring systems. You'd have to completely rebuild engineering.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


That is why the Navy is in the process of optimizing liquid fluoride thorium reactors, they are much smaller.

Remember the system is only going to power one thing the EMAL.
edit on 17-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Which is still going to require a rebuild of engineering and the flight deck.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Of course it would require a rebuild. But not of the deck I've already shown you that the electro magic trains in Japan operate fine and oversee water. ( Reactors are getting smaller and smaller the present requirement for the Electromagnetic launch system is 95 MJ. In many of the sealed new nuclear reactors that recirculate the water can handle that load.

All I'm saying is there is absolutely no way you could completely rule out the theory. I don't think anyone can predict the future of shipbuilding there are new advancements every year.

At one point the British canceled some of the F 35 B program in order to order at 35 C's and use EMALS On their new Queen Elizabeth class carriers. But the technology just wasn't completely ready, so they changed their order back to F 35 bs

I truly feel that F 35 bs will operate off these platforms and when technology catches up they will be able to use the EMALS and the f-35 C's. The EMALS Can handle much heavier aircraft that could fulfill the tanker requirements.

And come on man we're not talking about a small ship The Japanese helicopter tender destroyer is 750 meters long.
edit on 17-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

So you're going to say with a straight face that a train track that is raised above the calm ocean is the same as waves slamming over the deck? Yeah, sure it is.

And for a ship that is carrying aircraft that's small.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, train tracks suspended over the ocean are still exposed to saltwater continually with minimal maintenance. While a shipboard system would get maintenance daily. That's the military they will make you work when It's not even needed. Unless of course you're an officer which I believe you might have been.

Oh and the ship isn't that small it's 750 m long. That's bigger than the new Ford class carriers.


edit on 17-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



edit on 17-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Yes it's exposed to salt. It's not getting water into the workings by having a couple dozen gallons of water at a time dumped over it. Getting down into the tracks and mechanisms.

There are very good reasons that the people that design catapult systems put them into the deck. One is to protect them from the elements and water.


Bigger than a Ford in what universe? The Ford is slightly bigger than a Nimitz class. You might wanna go double check those figures there. The Izumo is 248 meters. That's a hell of a difference. If it was 750 meters it would be over 2400 feet long.



edit on 3/17/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/17/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/17/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58



Yeah the very good reason they put them into the deck to protect them from water was because they had ball bearings and such other intricate parts involved. The EMAL doesn't actually have any moving parts or parts that connect to each other that involve friction.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join