Aircraft Carriers

I just found this page;



And the below drawing of the hangar. If they really wanted to at least 3-5 helos could be easily placed in the hangar. And if the ship had deck edge elevators the number would be higher.

The lack of deck edge elevators is probally to apease politicans because the ship won't look so much like an CV...Stupid...

Another drawing shows the VLS on the aft STBD(right) side of the flight deck. Not cazy about that placement.

bd popeye said:

I just found this page;

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And the below drawing of the hangar. If they really wanted to at least 3-5 helos could be easily placed in the hangar. And if the ship had deck edge elevators the number would be higher.

The lack of deck edge elevators is probally to apease politicans because the ship won't look so much like an CV...Stupid...

Click to expand...

I can see a future refit that involves a ski jump and accommodations for F-35B.

I wonder what they will name her? Zuikaku and Shokaku sound just about right.

IDonT said:

I can see a future refit that involves a ski jump and accommodations for F-35B.

I wonder what they will name her? Zuikaku and Shokaku sound just about right.

Click to expand...

It is very obious that those ships are large enough to carry the JSF.

As for the names. I wonder if the Japanese Diet will aprove of the names? Those two names were adorned on the two most sucessful IJN CV's during WWII. It might "offend" some of it's neighbors...Personally I don't care. But I'm sure the Japanese politicians do.

Japan takes a gradual approach toward carrier capability, because if they suddenly built AC's 10 or 20 years ago, her neighbors would respond very negatively.

So they slowly build up the ships to resemble more and more like a carrier over time. Then one day, you'd find some F-35's sitting on the decks. But that day is not today.

The helicopter carriers being built right now will not feature ski jumps or heat-resistant decks for jet engine exhaust, nor will they be refitted (IMO) for jet operations. But sooner or later, possibly with the next generation ships, would have those features.

The Japanese navy's primary competition in carriers, I believe, will come from S. Korea. The South Koreans will look at whatever the Japanese is doing, and build bigger and better ships -- though the overall navy's size will be smaller than Japan's.

China, on the other hand, will progress at its own snail's pace on carrier program regardess of what Japan and Korea are doing. The PLAN will build up its carrier program whenever they feel it's ready and receives the funding to do so.

I agree with Adeptius. China has no strategic reason to rush its carrier program. With it will have one soon with the Varyag and that will give it the experience it needs for carrier ops. As for an indigenous carrier, China doesn't need to rush. The PLANs budget is only going to grow, and ut has no pressing rivals. It also needs to wait for the aviation sector to catch up and give it suitable carrier-borne aircraft. There isn't and carrier AWACS plane that I can think of that would be available to China, and it either needs to wait for the Russians to develop a plane that can be used in the strike role as well as the A2A role off of a carrier of build one of its own (navalized J-10?). Nope, there's no reason for the Chinese to rush carrier production.

The helicopter carriers being built right now will not feature ski jumps or heat-resistant decks for jet engine exhaust, nor will they be refitted (IMO) for jet operations. But sooner or later, possibly with the next generation ships, would have those features.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not. But as you say the JMSDF is slowing moving to a CV..sooner or later..

On the flight deck,I will bet anything..well almost anything..that that flight deck is armoured. Why? Because the USN will be landing it's helos on it. All USN flight decks are about 90mm in thickness.

I have a question here. Why would the F-35B need a sky-jump ramp as mentioned earlier ? I mean the STO capability comes from the moveable fan and I've seen harriers taking off from Wasp (?) class vessels without sky-jump and I don't know these ships have a catapult, or have they ... ?

Scratch said:

I have a question here. Why would the F-35B need a sky-jump ramp as mentioned earlier ? I mean the STO capability comes from the moveable fan and I've seen harriers taking off from Wasp (?) class vessels without sky-jump and I don't know these ships have a catapult, or have they ... ?

Click to expand...

Harriers and Lightnings don't 'need' a ski jump to take off from a carrier, but it improves their operational performance (range, offensive payload etc) and reduces the length of flight deck needed for the take off roll. The smaller the carrier the more necessary a ski jump becomes. On the Wasps and Tarawas the take off roll usually requires up to three quarters of the ships length when the Harriers are carrying a large load of fuel and ordnance, yet the Americans excuse for not fitting ski jumps is it would cost a helo spot on the forward deck. But the flight deck cannot be used for helos while harriers are launching as they take up the whole runway. With a ski jump the Harriers could be spotted at the mid point of the deck leaving the after area free for continued helo ops.

Obi Wan Russell said:

Harriers and Lightnings don't 'need' a ski jump to take off from a carrier, but it improves their operational performance (range, offensive payload etc) and reduces the length of flight deck needed for the take off roll. The smaller the carrier the more necessary a ski jump becomes. On the Wasps and Tarawas the take off roll usually requires up to three quarters of the ships length when the Harriers are carrying a large load of fuel and ordnance, yet the Americans excuse for not fitting ski jumps is it would cost a helo spot on the forward deck. But the flight deck cannot be used for helos while harriers are launching as they take up the whole runway. With a ski jump the Harriers could be spotted at the mid point of the deck leaving the after area free for continued helo ops.

Click to expand...

All very true. The USN flight deck on an LHD/LHA needs no ski jump because of the length. I think the USN opted out of the ski jump in case they wanted to operate the ships strictly with helos...poor excuse in my opinion...I think a ski jump would make the ship more versitile. The link below will show you a picture of the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) Operating Sea Harriers. Enlarge the picture and you will see the helos neatly tucked away on the STBD side of the flight deck.

I think the no ski jump on LHD/A is for political reasons. The USN doesn't want the "lets use LHD for carriers instead of the Nimitz argument" used against them when it comes to funding battles.