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

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


I'm agreeing with you that you don't need a Nimitz to pack a punch. But this ship can't fly F-35s or any other fixed wing aircraft, unless you count the V-22 as a fixed wrong. The deck is just too small. And I don't care who you are, you don't run offensive operations with helicopters. Even if they could put F-35s on the deck, best your looking at four. What are you going to do with four of them? If they had three, and they all worked together, that's 12. You have to leave three to four to defend the fleet, so you have eight to nine at best NC They can't come off the deck fully loaded, so you have nine partially loaded F-35s. What are you going to do with them, besides piss someone off?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by redoubt

 

A STOVL, like the F-35 has to take off like a conventional aircraft, it just uses the exhaust to make the takeoff shorter. They can only take off vertically with a small fraction of the fuel they normally carry, , and no weapons load. The deck of this ship IIRC is too short for their takeoff roll.

What modifications would be required to make it F-35 worthy?

Originally posted by redoubt

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by redoubt

 

A STOVL, like the F-35 has to take off like a conventional aircraft, it just uses the exhaust to make the takeoff shorter. They can only take off vertically with a small fraction of the fuel they normally carry, , and no weapons load. The deck of this ship IIRC is too short for their takeoff roll.

What modifications would be required to make it F-35 worthy?

Launching and capturing mechanisms, which may be there under hidden deck hatches they're not telling us about.

I wonder when we are going to have Drone Carriers, its a pretty logical step. You could filed more craft and have them stay up in the air longer. Both very advantageous things. I would guess you would need a smaller overall carrier as well.

A combo Drone Carrier / Cruise missile launcher would be a deadly duo.

I think the more important factor is that this could be a starting point for learning what it takes to make a full size carrier. It's been almost 70 years since the Japanese have operated a vessel of this type and the institutional knowledge that makes a successful navy relating to air operations will have to be relearned and expended on.
It will also take time to learn to integrate the new capabilities into the existing force structure and how these capabilities will then fit into any national and international considerations regarding Japanese policy.

This is more than just adding a ship or two, it's going to be a fundamental shift in the region.

CNN said it isn't an aircraft carrier.

www.cnn.com...

Obviously it isn't an aircraft carrier.

It is a destroyer.

Jeez people, learn how to read! Those eyeballs in your head need to be examined

Originally posted by teachtaire
CNN said it isn't an aircraft carrier.

www.cnn.com...

Obviously it isn't an aircraft carrier.

It is a destroyer.

Jeez people, learn how to read! Those eyeballs in your head need to be examined

C'mon, It's really a cruise ship. It's for those wealthy tourist that want to feel like they are in a war zone. They scare the tourists with 3am warning horns and then is circled by terrorist circling the ship shooting off blank shots and bombs. It's clearly a themed-vacation get away. Come experience fear and war and you even get a chhance to push buttons that fire guns that make noise.

reply to post by redoubt


More deck space, and the ability to carry more. The Hyuga class simply can't carry them, period. There are no modifications that can be made that put an F-35 on her deck. She's simply too small. The Izumo, when complete could theoretically carry F-35s, but her displacement is only going to be 27,000 tons fully loaded. That's not a lot of room for any number of F-35s, fuel, weapons, etc. A Wasp class, in the US Navy can carry 20 AV-8Bs (standard complement is a mix of 6 AV-8Bs, and helicopters), if they take everything else off, and displaces 41,000+ tons.

The problem with both hulls is the fact that they're using a flat deck. A flat deck means that the aircraft taking off are limited in fuel and armament. If they're operating in an area that has allied tanker aircraft in the area, the fuel isn't a problem, but armament will be.

The really big problem is that Japan is buying the F-35A, which will never see the deck of a ship, no matter who you are.

reply to post by Thunderheart


You mean like the ones on the USS Wasp?



reply to post by pavil


The first UAV landing on a full deck Nimitz class carrier was last month. They have to walk before they can run, and are a ways from operating them off the deck in more than ones and twos.

reply to post by teachtaire


reply to post by ItDepends


There are three types of aircraft carrier.

CATOBAR, which is the Nimitz class, the Charles DeGaulle, and the Sao Paulo. These are carriers that use a catapult system to launch, and an arresting cable to land aircraft. This allows for maximum weight take offs. A CATOBAR carrier is used for power projection, and offensive operations.

STOBAR, such as the Admiral Kuznetsov and Liaoning. These carriers use a ski jump at the end of the deck, to allow for heavier take offs (not max weight however), and an arrested landing system, similar to that of a full deck carrier. These generally carry more weapons than a full deck carrier, and are used for fleet defense and air superiority.

STOVL, which include the Tarawa, Wasp, and future America classes, as well as the Cavor, Viraat, Giuseppe Girabaldi, Juan Carlos, Chakri Naruebet, and Illustrious. These will have either a flat deck, or a ski jump, depending on country, and no catapult or arresting gear. They generally carry aircraft such as the AV-8B, that can land vertically, as well as helicopters (both the UK and Thailand have retired their fixed wing STOVL aircraft and only use helicopters on deck now).

The primary mission of the Hyuga and Ise is antisubmarine warfare, which means helicopters. They were built to destroyer specifications, with a flight deck added. The deck is not large enough for fixed wing operations, unless you count the V-22 as fixed wing. Any kind of F-35 operations would require them to launch with such a small load as to be nearly useless, and having to land again almost immediately.

reply to post by Zaphod58


The schematics for the new catapult systems are really pretty. Any thoughts into how those will change the current situation?

Could you post a schematic of the new catapult vs the old one and give us an outline of the differences?

reply to post by teachtaire


navyaviation.tpub.com...
navy-matters.beedall.com...

There are a couple simplified diagrams of the steam catapult.

EMALS:
media.defenceindustrydaily.com...

There's a huge difference between the two of them. The current catapults in use, by every navy that uses them (US, France, and Brazil, eventually possibly India, and possibly Russia) are all steam catapults, which means they have to have a source of steam, steam piping, etc up to the catapult.

EMALS uses electromagnetic power to launch the aircraft. One of the problems with steam is that you can get steam leaks, or a drop in steam pressure during launch, which can lead to something like this:



If you lose pressure on launch, you aren't going to get enough speed to stay in the air, and you're going to crash. With EMALS you have a much steadier pressure, not subject to dropping like the steam catapult does occasionally. It's also going to be easier to maintain, and give much more power than a steam catapult. The EMALS linear induction motor will be able to propel a 100,000lb aircraft to 130 knots (the F/A-18C/D has a max take off weight of 51,900 lbs, and the E/F 66,000 lbs).

EMALS test:



en.wikipedia.org...

EMALS is going to radically change things when it comes to launching aircraft. You'll be able to see bigger aircraft on the deck eventually if they choose to go that route, which means more payload, more fuel. Even if they stay with the current fleet of aircraft (F/A-18, E/A-18, F-35 [eventually], launch safety will improve immensely. As will repair times for the catapults, and refit times for the catapult. This is going to be a nice system to put on a ship.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thank you, that was very informative. Pity about the schematics, but I guess most people wouldn't understand what they were looking at anyway.



You mentioned the new technology radically changing warfare.

Would you say that, rather than building bigger planes, you could have the same sized planes operating on a smaller deck?

As I recall, that was one of the main goals.

Not to mention the fact that drones are (comparatively,) tiny.

I'm not an engineer or airforce guy, but you seem to know what you're talking about.

*EDIT* and not to be racist, but these are the JAPANESE we're talking about. I'm relieved that their destroyer doesn't sprout wings and legs.

reply to post by teachtaire


If you wanted to put EMALS on a new build smaller ship, it probably could be done. You wouldn't need nearly the hull space that a steam catapult would require. You may still run into power problems, and would need to put in an area to supply power to the system. I would say the best bet is to purpose build a smaller deck STOVL carrier with them from the start if you wanted to go that route. For a STOVL carrier, you're probably better off with a ski jump on the end of the deck. It's easier to build, doesn't have extra power requirements, and you can launch with a heavier payload than a flat deck.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thank you.

About the deck being flat....

Assuming you had to spend the resources putting in a new catapult system, wouldn't it make sense to add a bit of a ramp/curve at the end of the launch area like the rest of the world does? That helps the aircraft take off, does it not? Or is it just there for looks?

Is it possible to make such a modification? Or is a flat deck doomed to forever stay flat?

Do people even bother with retrofitting for such things? Like you said, comparing WW2 to current day technology is stupid.

reply to post by teachtaire


The ski jump is primarily used on the STOVL carriers, and Marine AV-8B pilots that flew off the Ark Royal came back and said that it was great, and they could carry more flying off that deck than our own. With a catapult launch system you don't need to have a ramp at the end, as the catapult provides you with enough speed to achieve a positive climb rate.

The huge difference with the ski jump is evident in the take off roll required. With the ski jump, an AV-8B requires only half the deck (400ish feet), without it, the same aircraft requires almost the entire deck (700ish feet). You probably could refit the deck to a ski jump, but it might require replacement of much of the bow section.. There has been talk since the F-35B came around of putting ski jumps on the new small deck carriers in the US Navy.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Ah, okay! Thanks.

Something tells me, that if one were to look at the frame of the ship as it was being built, or at schematics... it would be apparent that the beast was built with a retrofit in mind.

I'm guessing the plan is a dual system with electronic catapults and a ski ramp.

Because they're Asian and that is what Asians do.


Unless you're philipino.

www.timawa.net...

reply to post by teachtaire


It wouldn't surprise me at all. We'll know if they suddenly buy F-35Bs instead of As. They are talking about delaying the purchase of the As since the price has gone up. If they suddenly switch to Bs, then they're probably going to put them on the Izumo, and we may see a refit occur in the next few years. Or even the second hull switch to a ski jump (EMALS still has a few years of development, but the land tests are going nicely).

And just in case you haven't followed the F-35, the A is the CTOL for the Air Force, and requires a fixed runway. The B is the STOVL for the Marines, and will operate off the US LHAs, and the UK Queen Elizabeth class. The C is a CTOL, but it's the Naval version, so it will operate off the Nimitz and Ford classes with a catapult.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Not my area of expertise, I'll take your word on it.

That being said, maybe they'll pull out some of their own classified technology instead of using our stuff that is full of backdoors that have been compromised by the Chinese.

Jets are basically flying computers.

Originally posted by teachtaire
Do people even bother with retrofitting for such things? Like you said, comparing WW2 to current day technology is stupid.

Missed this part earlier. Yes, retrofitting still occurs. Once EMALS comes online, the remaining Nimitz class (the younger ones at any rate) will be refit with EMALS in place of their steam systems. That's the last plan I heard from the Navy anyway.

reply to post by teachtaire


Oh there's a good bit that's out there that doesn't have back doors for anyone. Some of the black world stuff would water your eyes if it came out into the light. Stuff that some of the contractors working on it don't even have the complete picture for.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by teachtaire
Do people even bother with retrofitting for such things? Like you said, comparing WW2 to current day technology is stupid.

Missed this part earlier. Yes, retrofitting still occurs. Once EMALS comes online, the remaining Nimitz class (the younger ones at any rate) will be refit with EMALS in place of their steam systems. That's the last plan I heard from the Navy anyway.

ROFL! The NAVY?!

Those poor guys, God bless 'em, they've been wanting to do that since the late 90's.

Just tell them we'll give 'em all the goodies the day after tomorrow. They'll believe that for decades.