This is NOT the Aircraft Carrier you are looking for...

reply to post by schuyler


As I recall, bandwidth of launch times was a non-issue.

I mentioned that as well, and quickly understood how much of a stupid statement I had made.

Basically, band width of launch only matters when you are scrambling aircraft. This doesn't really happen that much nowadays as there is advanced warning. Unless it is a stealth based attack, in which case you're already dead.

You can afford to take half an hour to launch everything if you have the other craft loaf around waiting for everyone to get ready. Anyway.

reply to post by schuyler


I've met enough ranking officers in the carrier fleet to ask them stupid questions directly. All in all, I'd rather keep that knowledge fresh in my head instead of watching propaganda

Broke one of the admirals buzz shavers once.

Beats me why he left it in the command room in a helmet.

Still feel bad about that ):

The other guys in the room told me it cost $200 and I'd have to buy him a new one or get thrown off the bridge. I had a heart attack.

Originally posted by Tardacus
It seems that in theory, they could use F-35A`s on that ship.

The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long...

hosted.ap.org...

Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II
Minimum Take Off Distance -
167.64 metres 550.00 feet
Minimum Landing Distance -
213.36 metres 700.00 feet

www.aircraftcompare.com...

At 820 feet, the flight deck seems to be plenty long enough for take offs which require a 550 foot minimum.
With a 700 foot minimum landing distance, landings might be a bit hair raising on a 820 foot deck, unless they add some modifications to assist in landings.

In fact it seems like it would be a lot more work to modify it to use F-35B`s

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, acknowledged Wasp-class ship modifications have been designed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) vertical lift-and-takeoff variants.

Navy officials say the modifications “are intended to offset the increased stresses associated with JSF exhaust. The exhaust patterns and flight characteristics of the F-35 required the shielding, relocation and removal of vulnerable systems that could sustain damage during flight operations, such as antennas, life rafts, life rails, safety nets and JP-5 fuel stations.”

Additionally, the Navy says, “The unique heat signature of the F-35 has required reinforcement of the flight deck to alleviate stresses from the heat of the jet, as well as modifying the flight deck coating to reduce erosion caused by jet exhaust associated with increased thrust. Specific system modifications that are unique to F-35 will also require the installation of new voltage regulators and rectifiers. Expanded mission capabilities of the F-35 have also required enhanced munitions throughput and systems capabilities to facilitate increased ordnance delivery and aircraft associated support equipment.”

Some of the detailed modifications include relocating or shielding features such as the Phalanx close-in-weapon system and Rolling Airframe Missile and NATO Sea Sparrow missile launchers, and protecting fueling stations.

The WSC-8 satcoms antenna will also be moved, and the aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) system is being expanded.

The changes confirm that Lockheed Martin and the Marine Corps issued erroneous statements in early 2010 regarding the environmental effects of the F-35B’s exhaust. At that time, a company spokesman said that “extensive tests” had shown that “the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B.”

www.aviationweek.com.../article-xml/asd_05_29_2013_p01-02-582896.xml&p=1

edit on 8-8-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

I wish some of you would listen to Zaphos. An aircraft carrier, has a hangar full of aircraft, parts, weapons fuel, needs helicopters, needs jets.

You dont build an aircraft carrier around minimums.
F35B needs a ramp, the ramp puts so much pressure on the nosewheel it needs to be strengthened, firing a jet at a ramp via a non existant catapult would probably snap the gear off. The deck would need to be stronger too.

As Zaphos said, what use are 9 F35 aircraft, fleet defence? Probably better with 1 decent Air Warfare Destroyer than 9 F-35 aboard 3 ASW ships.

Yes, you could launch an aircraft off it - BAe launched an aircraft (Jaguar) off the M55 motorway in lancashire, that doesnt make the M55 an aerodrome or air base.

If the Japs wanted a carrier they would probably buy one from the US and not make their own.

reply to post by IamSirDrinksalot


You are either damage control or misinformed.

Perhaps both.

Zaphos is obviously feeding us official sounding misinformation.

I only play video games, yet I can deduce that.

Anyway, qua qua qua.

As Zaphos said, what use are 9 F35 aircraft, fleet defence? Probably better with 1 decent Air Warfare Destroyer than 9 F-35 aboard 3 ASW ships.

An Aegis Destroyer or Cruiser is used for Fleet Defense and Freedom of the Sea Lane missions, whereas a carrier is used for Alfred Thayer Mahan's "Projection of Power Ashore" mission from "The Influence of Seapower Upon History, 1660–1783", these being three of the five classic missions of a global Navy.

Cruisers, Corvettes, Frigates and Destroyers are extraordinarily vulnerable to SSN's and are mostly for show, if they are the sole platform possessed by a Navy. Unless they have dipping sonar and sonobouy support, which this carrier has in ample supply. A sub fears a dipping helo with a Mk-46 torpedo more than anything (well besides another quieter sub)...

Japan has eschewed a global navy mission, in contrast to its philosophy, pre-WWII. With prejudice. The Japanese Navy here is considered an adjunct to "Armed Forces Projection of Defensive Power Support" and as such is used for logistics, and troop movements and ASW defense. Hence this platform.

That however, does not mean that the hangar deck, maintenance and PMS systems, combat systems, magazines, fuel avgas systems avionics and ET support, links, EWC, ordinance handling and communications/crypto centers cannot be quickly retrofitted to support the F-35 B variant.

The Japanese Diet would never approve a carrier overtly designed for the F-35 in its primary mission. That can be quickly done if the mission suddenly changes to something akin to, or compatible with, the US Navy.

I think it was a smart move on the part of the Japanese.

reply to post by Tardacus


Except for one minor problem. The F-35A will never fly off any deck. Ever. Not even a Nimitz class carrier.

The F-35 models are:

F-35A - Conventional take-off from a fixed runway. No folding wings, no catapult interface. Air Force version.
F-35B - Short take-off vertical landing. Able to hover and land vertically, and rotate the engine downward for a shorter take off run. Marine version.
F-35C - Conventional take-off, folding wings, catapult interface. Navy version.

There is no ship in the world that can carry an F-35A.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Except for one minor problem. The F-35A will never fly off any deck. Ever. Not even a Nimitz class carrier.

The F-35 models are:

F-35A - Conventional take-off from a fixed runway. No folding wings, no catapult interface. Air Force version.
F-35B - Short take-off vertical landing. Able to hover and land vertically, and rotate the engine downward for a shorter take off run. Marine version.
F-35C - Conventional take-off, folding wings, catapult interface. Navy version.

There is no ship in the world that can carry an F-35A.

reply to post by teachtaire


Okay now your posting just random crap, to a well thought out answer. What zaphod is saying is correct you should take it on board.

Originally posted by IamSirDrinksalot

Originally posted by Tardacus
It seems that in theory, they could use F-35A`s on that ship.

The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long...

hosted.ap.org...

Lockheed Martin F35 Lightning II
Minimum Take Off Distance -
167.64 metres 550.00 feet
Minimum Landing Distance -
213.36 metres 700.00 feet

www.aircraftcompare.com...

At 820 feet, the flight deck seems to be plenty long enough for take offs which require a 550 foot minimum.
With a 700 foot minimum landing distance, landings might be a bit hair raising on a 820 foot deck, unless they add some modifications to assist in landings.

In fact it seems like it would be a lot more work to modify it to use F-35B`s

Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, acknowledged Wasp-class ship modifications have been designed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) vertical lift-and-takeoff variants.

Navy officials say the modifications “are intended to offset the increased stresses associated with JSF exhaust. The exhaust patterns and flight characteristics of the F-35 required the shielding, relocation and removal of vulnerable systems that could sustain damage during flight operations, such as antennas, life rafts, life rails, safety nets and JP-5 fuel stations.”

Additionally, the Navy says, “The unique heat signature of the F-35 has required reinforcement of the flight deck to alleviate stresses from the heat of the jet, as well as modifying the flight deck coating to reduce erosion caused by jet exhaust associated with increased thrust. Specific system modifications that are unique to F-35 will also require the installation of new voltage regulators and rectifiers. Expanded mission capabilities of the F-35 have also required enhanced munitions throughput and systems capabilities to facilitate increased ordnance delivery and aircraft associated support equipment.”

Some of the detailed modifications include relocating or shielding features such as the Phalanx close-in-weapon system and Rolling Airframe Missile and NATO Sea Sparrow missile launchers, and protecting fueling stations.

The WSC-8 satcoms antenna will also be moved, and the aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) system is being expanded.

The changes confirm that Lockheed Martin and the Marine Corps issued erroneous statements in early 2010 regarding the environmental effects of the F-35B’s exhaust. At that time, a company spokesman said that “extensive tests” had shown that “the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B.”

www.aviationweek.com.../article-xml/asd_05_29_2013_p01-02-582896.xml&p=1

edit on 8-8-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

I wish some of you would listen to Zaphos. An aircraft carrier, has a hangar full of aircraft, parts, weapons fuel, needs helicopters, needs jets.

You dont build an aircraft carrier around minimums.
F35B needs a ramp, the ramp puts so much pressure on the nosewheel it needs to be strengthened, firing a jet at a ramp via a non existant catapult would probably snap the gear off. The deck would need to be stronger too.

As Zaphos said, what use are 9 F35 aircraft, fleet defence? Probably better with 1 decent Air Warfare Destroyer than 9 F-35 aboard 3 ASW ships.

Yes, you could launch an aircraft off it - BAe launched an aircraft (Jaguar) off the M55 motorway in lancashire, that doesnt make the M55 an aerodrome or air base.

If the Japs wanted a carrier they would probably buy one from the US and not make their own.

actually they could fit 15 F-35A`s on the flight deck,wing tip to wing tip nose to tail and still have 600 feet of flight deck for takeoff. I don`t believe that`s what they plan on doing with the ship but the facts prove that it definately could be done if a situation arose in which they felt the need to do it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Except for one minor problem. The F-35A will never fly off any deck. Ever. Not even a Nimitz class carrier.

The F-35 models are:

F-35A - Conventional take-off from a fixed runway. No folding wings, no catapult interface. Air Force version.
F-35B - Short take-off vertical landing. Able to hover and land vertically, and rotate the engine downward for a shorter take off run. Marine version.
F-35C - Conventional take-off, folding wings, catapult interface. Navy version.

There is no ship in the world that can carry an F-35A.

Why can`t they carrier a F-35A? the flight deck is wide enough and long enough.

The flight deck of this ship is 105 feet wide, a F-35A has a wing span of 35 feet and a length of 51 feet.
Three of them parked side by side wing tip to wing tip would equal 105 feet.


It has a 820 foot long deck and the plane only needs 550 feet to take off, without a catapult.
Sure the plane wasn`t made for carriers but it`s definately possibly to do it, if they really wanted to.

reply to post by Tardacus


The 550 foot take off is for the B model, with the lift fan operating, and the engine nozzle pointed down. But the A model landing gear isn't stressed for carrier operations, the wings don't fold up, so you'd lose a ton of deck space, and to stop them before the end of the deck you'd have to have arresting gear. But the first time that they slammed into the deck (a carrier landing is a controlled crash) they'd damage the landing gear and have to replace all the struts.

That take off till is also optimal conditions light fuel no weapons. You'll add at least a hundred feet with more fuel and weapons. You NEVER give an aircraft, especially on a flight deck the minimum runway required.

Zaph is right, that 550 is for the F-35B. The A model is closer to 1500 feet needed for takeoff, or about the same as an F-16. So no F-35A will ever see the deck of a carrier in its life, unless they are doing a flyby

reply to post by Thunderheart


As soon as Abe become prime minister all the talk was about changing the Japanese constitution and rearming Japan. It is so clear what Abe is up to. He is trying to throw this weight around Asia and China is having none of it. The man better chill out before he causes something stupid to happen.

reply to post by freedomwv


So it's Japans fault China is laying claim to every resource rich area around them, whether they have a right to or not. And it's Japans fault China is pushing others, with better claims to the areas in question around.

This is the strangest carrier discussion I've ever seen on ATS. While some of us are attempting to have a serious discussion it is being interrupted by clowns with squirt guns and noisemakers. Yes, you have the right to post and no, I can't stop you, but where these folks may think they are hysterically funny, they are being juvenile and damaging their own reputations. They are like children disrupting class out of boredom. If this continues we really ought to start reporting their posts. Their contentions certainly do not deserve replies.

Let us summarize. Most of the issues have been dismissed. Here we have a new ship designed for a specific purpose, territorial water defense. Everything about it screams that this is the intent. It's the right design and the right size for just such a mission. But immediately people try to make it into something else. It's all a conspiracy, dontcha' know?

The first issue is the definition of an aircraft carrier. This comes up all the time with reference to America's CVNs vs the LHA/LHDs. Technically speaking, because helicopters are "aircraft," a ship that is designed to handle primarily helicopters IS an "aircraft carrier." Point conceded, but it is specious and dismissible. You haven't proven a thing. You think you've 'won a point,' but you have not. No sailor, officer or enlisted, would ever call an LHD-type ship an "aircraft carrier." It just isn't done. The retort would be, "How many F/A-18 squadrons can it hold again?" It would be like insisting that a truck is an "automobile," which technically, it is. But you don't hear many people insisting, as a point of honor, that a truck is an automobile, do you? No, because people don't talk like that in real life. The only people who would insist that an LHD is an "aircraft carrier" are landlubbers who are displaying their ignorance.

The second issue here is whether this ship is offensive or defensive. The claim is that though it looks "set up" for defense it "could be used for offense." Once again you are letting your definitions get ahead of you. If by "offensive" you mean a ship like this could be used to go attack something, you're right. It could. Indeed, It's got 14 helicopters on board, and that means it could go drop some bombs somewhere or carry some marines on an invasion mission, so in that sense it could be used "offensively."

But now things get weird because people start making stuff up. The silliest argument so far is that this ship "could have" a catapult system, therefore it "could" carry attack aircraft. Well, no, it couldn't. Answer: "The catapult could be hidden!" Well, no, it couldn't. Answer: "Well, unless you have been on board and snooped around under the desk, you don't know!" Well, a gas turbine engine doesn't have enough energy to support a launch and recover system. This one seems to have died away, but the point is that it isn't a bona fide argument in the first place. It comes from ignorance. When someone claims something like this, you know they don't know what they are talking about.

the next weird thing is the claim that this ship "could be" retrofitted with a ramp, thus allowing STOL aircraft to use it, and this somehow "proves" the ship could be used for offense, because the STOL aircraft could be attack aircraft. Sure. technically perhaps you "could" retrofit this brand new ship you just built with a ramp. It would take a couple of years (not 72 hours), change the intent of the design, etc. but it "could be" done.

My answer to that is: So? The real intent of these make believe changes to the ship is to get to the point where you could call it an "offensive weapon." You guys want to measure the length of the deck, measure the take-off run, and come to the conclusion that an F/A-35A "could" take off from this ship. This is not a mathematical exercise. It requires infrastructure that simply isn't there.

Somehow getting to this definition changes things for some people. But you cannot get away from the fact that this ship is half the size of an American LHD. It holds 14 helicopters. You want to pretend that it could hold 14 F/A somethings and all the support material. One mistake here is assuming helicopters can only hold water and bandages and attack aircraft only hold bombs. But helicopters can hold bombs. Indeed the right kind of helicopter is a great offensive weapon. They also hold torpedoes. Helicopters are a primary ASW weapons system. But if you want to pretend that holding a handful of F/A somethings suddenly changes the mission, go right ahead.

Then what? Attack Peking? Are you going to sail out in that pipsqueak boat and pretend you are a CVN? The support for a truly effective offensive capability is simply not there. There is not enough firepower on that boat, no matter what you stick on it, to make it so. You cannot wish it into existence by changing definitions or speculating on what "could be done." Nothing posted here proves otherwise.

reply to post by schuyler


too long didn't read it but i'm sure it was a great post!

reply to post by schuyler


Well, Zaphod has been rather inconsistent. He told us no F35 could ever fly off this ship, he told us the deck wasn't long enough, he told us the hull was inadequate. We've been told that even if this ship did get modified to take the F35B that it'd still be militarily useless because it couldn't carry enough of them ... something the British contributors might wish to consider.

The new 70,000 ton Queen Elizabeth class supercarriers are only maybe carry 12 to 15 of these aircraft each (although not at the same time) ... are those ships going to be useless as well ? In which case why are the Brits building them at all ? The answer to that you might find in the "England's New Supercarriers" thread, a thread that many of Zaphod's supporters haven't even contributed to. I mean, you're all into ships and aircraft, why the absence from that thread ?

No forum gangs here of course, no little cliques, no ATS payroll vote looking after a subject matter expert who's in a hole of his own making and who just can't stop digging.

I'll be honest with you. Zaphod's been so astoundingly inconsistent, I haven't a clue what his position is.

But hey, start reporting posts now too if you like. We all know Zaphod's mucked up big time, no amount of post deletions will cure that one.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


And as I said I will, I'll admit when I'm wrong. At first I looked up the deck size for the Hyiga class, which is too small for them. The Izumo IS too small to carrya game changing number of F-35s. It's believed the Wasp will be able to carry twenty if they clear everything off, and she's about twice the displacement as an Izumo, but they're still a ways away from finding out how many fit.

The Queen Elizabeth would be able to carry more, but like the Wasps they will carry helicopters as well as F-35s, which means gg took. But I would take fifteen of them over the small number the Izumo could theoretically carry any day.

And again, how many Bs is Japan buying? So what planes are they putting on her?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Zaphod you're asking the same question over and over again ... what airplanes have they got or have they ordered, you're asking as if tomorrow is some undiscovered country we'll never visit together. I'm speculating in the affirmative that they'll put in a ski jump & buy F35B's. I don't know for a fact that they'll do it. But I doubt they'll have invested in a hull of that size if they weren't going to, once we are all happy campers with the idea of the Japanese Navy having aircraft carriers again.

So that's my position.

How would you feel incidentally, in your capacity as radar operator on a Chinese destroyer, as you look down your radar scope and see four ... say the only four F35B's from this Japanese carrier ... coming towards your ship with a view to attacking ? Hypothetically.

Would you stick to your position of "oh, worry not, those airplanes hail from only a little ship half the size of half the size of the Americans Nimitz class" ... or would you start crapping your pants as the anti ship missile starts zooming towards you ?

Would ship tonnage be high on your priorities at that point ?

Think of it that way.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


You're speculating, I'm going by what we know. You want to be right, fine, you're right, they could change their minds tomorrow and pull her into drydock and put a new deck on her and buy F-35Bs to go on the deck.

Realistically it's a different story completely. A deck refit would mean a year or two of down time, and a big redesign.

As for your hypothetical radar operator, Japan just sank his ship, what are they gonna do now, with their roughly 7 F-35s the Izumo could hypothetically carry, especially when China retaliates?