SinoDefence Forum

harryRIEDL · 11-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Thank you for postingbthat article F40 racer. I moved it in an attempt to revive the carrier thread.

In the future the JMSDF may add a ski-ramp or out fit the ship with 8-12 JSF. The JMSDF is very proficent in operating ships and will certainly do the same with this ship. Look for the JMSDF to take about three years or a little less to make this ship fully operational. The ship neds;

1) Shakedown cruise..to find faults with the ship

2) Minor re-fit to repair flaws.

3) Crew training...
a) Flight operations training
b) Engineering/damage control/firefighting drills
c) Real world operational training scenarios

4) Learn inter operablity with allied nations.

So all you CV afficanadios..what do you think and what it will take the JMSDF to get the ship fully operational????

their is still the problem of it not laid out properly for carrier ops so it very very very very unlikely that F35b will on bored. the very first problem would be the deck it would be relayed with heat resistance material
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/arc...p?t-70379.html
this is a rather long and old thread but it dose cover many of the issues basically it is possible but generally pointless as 20,000 tons isn't really large enough for JSF's. plus the stupid design of lifts making Air [fixed wing]ops very very difficult as both lifts would have to be in the UP position [the Korean LHD has better designed lift in front of the island and behind it is planed for fixed wing unlike the DDH]. all told its a major refit comparable to the WW2 conversion [bad news for a country which hasn't had any design experience in 60 years]

EDIT: the ship would have great trouble having enough stores to support fixed wing air ops

they basically in my humble opinion need a new vessel to take the role. They would have a good start by seconding many helo crew, landing officers etc to see how every one else dose it. the interoperability point three i haven't covered that in much detail as that out of my knowledge but the Japaneses should be well intergreated in the USN but i don't know how that reflects in into the other European carrier nations [FR/UK]

[sorry for the negative view its just that some people seem to think these ships have been designed for fixed wing air ops and all ive seen this isn't the case]

bd popeye · 11-26-2007

Thanks for your response harryRIEDL!

I agree with you about the flight deck layout. It's as though the Japanese delibertly built the ship to have a limited capacity and ablity. I.E. limiting the operation of JSF..

They do need to start from scratch and build a CV if they really want one.

The ship is well suited for helo ops. I believe the the JMSDF claims the ship can operate 4 helos. This is very hard for me to swallow. Because of the elevator arrangement I would guess that 12 or so may be handled by the ship..in a pinch!. Another problem for the JMSDF is accomdations. Everyone at sea in the JMSDF has a state room.

And is not piled into berthing compartments like the USN and other navies. This arraingment reduces the ships capacity to handle more aircraft. Why?? The more aircraft the more crewman are need to maintain those helos.

harryRIEDL · 11-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Thanks for your response harryRIEDL!

I agree with you about the flight deck layout. It's as though the Japanese delibertly built the ship to have a limited capacity and ablity. I.E. limiting the operation of JSF..

They do need to start from scratch and build a CV if they really want one.

The ship is well suited for helo ops. I believe the the JMSDF claims the ship can operate 4 helos. This is very hard for me to swallow. Because of the elevator arrangement I would guess that 12 or so may be handled by the ship..in a pinch!. Another problem for the JMSDF is accomdations. Everyone at sea in the JMSDF has a state room.

And is not piled into berthing compartments like the USN and other navies. This arraingment reduces the ships capacity to handle more aircraft. Why?? The more aircraft the more crewman are need to maintain those helos.

although the RN is starting to operate something vaguely similar i think 6 to a room for ratings down 2-3 to officers [just like a boarding school without the playing fields

] the 4 helos is a joke unless the hanger is one of those half length/width jobbies but i haven't seen any layouts which suggest that [although they will likely only have 4 helos onbord due the joys of Japanese politics i.e the removal of Japanese ships from OEF because of opposition].
one last nail in the coffin is that the front elevator is to small for AV-8/F35B and the rear it is a very tight fit
also im quite interested in DODOKO especially as it was in this site that it was missing some of its fitting due to budget troubles and now its being sent on its 1st exercise

also you were on Constellation CV59[i think] how bad was the movement on board as the Wiki says that the midways were cramped and quite tricky carriers to land on.

Obi Wan Russell · 11-26-2007

Heat resistant material for flightdecks isn't as essential as some would think. The F-35B doesn't land vertically with afterburner on, and Harriers were operated for years from the wooden flightdeck of the SNS Dedalo (ex USS Cabot) without any reported problems. When landing a STOVL jet vertically onto the flight deck it is only over the landing spot for a few seconds before touchdown, at which point the engine is throttled back to idle and the nozzles are rotated aft to allow it to taxi forward. Prior to landing the jets hover alongside the ship and translate sideways over to their landing spot. The new JMSDF ships are large enough to support a sufficient number of JSFs to gain experience of operating them in a maritime environment, say around 8 F-35Bs plus a similar number of helos (albeit smaller types such as the Seahawk). This will be enough to give the JMSDF adequate operational experience to incorporate in a follow-on (ie larger) class, should the political will be there.

bd popeye · 11-26-2007

Quote:

the 4 helos is a joke unless the hanger is one of those half length/width jobbies but i haven't seen any layouts which suggest that [although they will likely only have 4 helos onbord due the joys of Japanese politics i.e the removal of Japanese ships from OEF because of opposition].

I've seen a layout of the hangar of the JMSDF 16DDH and I do believe it is quite large.

I was on the Midway CVA-41. The movement of aircrfat on their was quite smooth. Of course when I was on there the center line elevator had been removed.

I was also on the Hancock CVA-19. It did have a center line elevator which could be a hinderance to flight operations. It was kept up during most ioperations. During aircrfat recovery it was used to move aircraft that need to go to the hangar deck as soon as they were recovered.

USS Hancock CVA-19

USS Midway CV-41

Scratch · 12-01-2007

Already a little old news, but the USN doesn't seem to do so lucky these days with it's ship programs. Delays and cost overruns seem to threaten the new CVN, too.
EMALS, arresting gear, and the radar may cause problems.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...er-01494/#more

Quote:

July 24/07: In a statement before the US House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, Congressional Budget Office representatives testify that [PDF format]:

"CBO believes that the Navy's cost estimate for the first ship of the class, the Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), is optimistic. In its budget submission to the Congress, the Navy estimates that the CVN-78 will cost about $10 billion in 2008 dollars, including about $2.2 billion for nonrecurring engineering and design.16 The Navy argues that actual construction time and cost for the CVN-78 will be less than for its predecessor ship, the George H.W. Bush (CVN-77). CBO, by contrast, estimates that the CVN-78 will cost about $11 billion, allowing for the cost growth that has affected past shipbuilding programs at the CVN-78's stage of construction. If the CVN-78 experiences cost grow similar to that of other lead ships the Navy has purchased in the past 10 years, costs could be higher still.17 Moreover, Navy officials have told CBO that the confidence level associated with their estimate is below a 50 percent probability of meeting the cost target, which also suggests that costs could increase. In addition, a number of critical technologies for the CVN-78 are still under development, and difficulties could still arise in integrating the various new technologies associated with that class."

Quote:

Aug 23/07: GAO report expresses doubts re: project costs:

"While the Navy has mitigated the impact of some technologies, such as the nuclear propulsion and electric plant, three systems—the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), the dual band radar, and the advanced arresting gear—have faced problems during development that may affect the ship's construction costs… A structured design approach and a lengthy construction preparation contract have enabled the program to perform more work prior to construction than on previous carriers…. Costs for CVN 78 will likely exceed the budget for several reasons. First, the Navy's cost estimate, which underpins the budget, is optimistic…. Second, the Navy's target cost for ship construction may not be achievable…. Third, the Navy's ability to manage issues that affect cost suffers from insufficient cost surveillance. Without effective cost surveillance, the Navy will not be able to identify early signs of cost growth and take necessary corrective action."

Quote:

Sept 24/07: Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD], the ranking minority member in the US House Armed Services subcommittee on Seapower & Expeditionary Forces, releases a statement re: the GAO's August 2007 report, which he requested:

"At my request, the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office previously and now the GAO have told Congress the Navy's current shipbuilding program is unrealistic based upon the Navy's past performance. The development of three critical technologies has been delayed to such an extent that this first-of-class ship must experience 100% success in order to come in on budget and on schedule eight years from now. The GAO report also reminds us that both the shipbuilder's initial cost estimate and the DOD independent estimate were higher than the Navy's budget. As far as comparisons to LCS go, what is most disturbing is that the cost for CVN 78 is orders of magnitude higher than LCS. If CVN 78 should experience just 10% cost growth – far less than LCS – in the eight years until its scheduled delivery, the Navy will request another billion dollars. In this budget environment, that’s going to be a difficult sell. It reminds me that VADM Cebrowski's alternative fleet study suggested a larger number of smaller carriers might provide more value than the Navy’s strategy of a few Super Carrier platforms."

bd popeye · 12-23-2007

I don't want this Carrier thread to die..No way! To get the topic going again here are some pictures of the Italian CV Cavour undergoing sea trails with aircraft onboard. From what I understand she will be turned over to the Italian navy next year.

I'm looking foward tp PIX & discussion of the JMSDF DDH16000 and the ROK Dokodo.

Scratch · 12-23-2007

Nice pics of the cavour operating aircraft.

I also found a new pic of the spanish BPE currently being built on a spanish forum. Getting along quiet nice.

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1...02copiasc0.jpg

Both of wich will sustain and enhance those navies capabilities well into the future.
Hopefully the french and brits will succeed, too, making for a credible european carrier force ...

bd popeye · 12-23-2007

Quote:

Hopefully the french and brits will succeed, too, making for a credible european carrier force

It will be awesome. A NATO force of very capable CV's...They could carry out many missions. Air suppourt, ASW, humantarian & rescue missions.

Tasman · 12-24-2007

Great photos of the Italian CV Cavour. I was impressed with the space around the Harrier on the lift and it looks like the F-35B would have no difficulty operating from this ship. I really like the lines of Cavour (but then again I have always thought that the Italians make good looking ships

).

It is also good to see progress being made with the Spanish BPE. The two Australian ships of this type look like being operated with helicopters only but the new government indicated in the run up to the election that consideration would be given to operating VSTOL aircraft from them. However, this seems to not even be on the wish list of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) at the present time so I am not holding my breath.

Tas

Scratch · 12-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tasman

... I was impressed with the space around the Harrier on the lift and it looks like the F-35B would have no difficulty operating from this ship...

Italy being a tier 2 partner in the JSF program, I guess they thought about it when designing the carrier

Those being accompanied by EH-101 helos. I wonder if an Merlin AEW version will come also? I guess an Osprey is too big for that ship.

Quote:

However, this seems to not even be on the wish list of the ADF...

Would those F-35Bs be operated by the navy or the airforce, and does perhaps the AF not want Bs because they fear the # of As could be cut?

harryRIEDL · 12-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scratch

Italy being a tier 2 partner in the JSF program, I guess they thought about it when designing the carrier

Those being accompanied by EH-101 helos. I wonder if an Merlin AEW version will come also? I guess an Osprey is too big for that ship.

Would those F-35Bs be operated by the navy or the airforce, and does perhaps the AF not want Bs because they fear the # of As could be cut?

the Osprey could fit on Cavour as it has fitted on Illustrious i don't think the Itaiens have any interste in it. Yep there is already a E-101 AEW in service

Tasman · 12-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scratch

Would those F-35Bs be operated by the navy or the airforce, and does perhaps the AF not want Bs because they fear the # of As could be cut?

It is likely that the RAAF would mount strong arguments against the RAN getting back into fixed wing aviation. Basically the air force argues that the ADF is too small to efficiently support a naval air combat force. Whilst I personally disagree with this I am certain that any F-35B's operated from the Australian LHD's would be flown by the air force (or at best a joint RAAF/RAN squadron). As you have suggested the RAAF is likely to resist cuts to the F-35A force. It wants 4 squadrons of these and the acquisition of F-35B's would almost certainly be at the expense of one of these squadrons. The army seems to be happy with the level of close air support that will be offered by the Tiger helicopter and these will be deployed from the LHD's alongside army troop lift helos and naval Seahawks or Seasprites (carried for self defence against submarines or fast attack craft). There is also a concern that the troop lift capability would suffer if even a small number (say 4-6) of F-35B's were to be deployed from the LHD's.

There is the suggestion that a third sealift ship that the navy plans to acquire under the current Defence Capability Plan may also be a 'Canberra' class LHD and if this comes to fruition the ability to deploy F-35B's without an adverse affect on the troop lift capability will improve as one of the LHD's could be specifically tasked with this role.

Tas

Obi Wan Russell · 12-25-2007

On this and other forums I have heard a number of 'land lubbers' try to put forward the view that naval aviation does not require naval pilots and should be just another part of the repertoire of land based aviators. What they don't get is that naval aviators often go on to be ships captains and even admirals, and these are the people who need to have an intimate understanding of aviation at sea in order to make best use of it. In the Falklands war the Task Force was commanded by an ex submariner (Rear Admiral Woodward) who since admitted that he did not understand as much about the Sea Harriers capabilities or air defence in general as he should have. Most carrier captains in the RN (and all in the USN) are ex aviators so they understand how to best deploy the weapon systems deployed aboard ship. So even if the fourth Australian F-35 sqn is RAAF and not RAN it should still include a number of RAN pilots for this reason.

bd popeye · 12-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

On this and other forums I have heard a number of 'land lubbers' try to put forward the view that naval aviation does not require naval pilots and should be just another part of the repertoire of land based aviators. What they don't get is that naval aviators often go on to be ships captains and even admirals, and these are the people who need to have an intimate understanding of aviation at sea in order to make best use of it. In the Falklands war the Task Force was commanded by an ex submariner (Rear Admiral Woodward) who since admitted that he did not understand as much about the Sea Harriers capabilities or air defence in general as he should have. Most carrier captains in the RN (and all in the USN) are ex aviators so they understand how to best deploy the weapon systems deployed aboard ship. So even if the fourth Australian F-35 sqn is RAAF and not RAN it should still include a number of RAN pilots for this reason.

Merry Christmas Obi Wan ..and very well stated.

I wish the USN would follow this reasoning in it's assignments of task force commanders. There use to be a time some years ago when all USN CV task force commandes were all Naval avatiors. This is no longer true. Cv task force commanders are now open to line(surface warfare) officers also. Why? So line officers have the same oppurtinty in advancement and assignment.

Fortunatley the USN has installed in such commands Naval avatior as the Chief of staff to "assist" the task force commander with his avation assets.

SinoDefence Forum

Aircraft Carriers II

Aircraft Carriers II

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/aircraft-carriers-ii-3125.html

vBulletin Tweet Poster