Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force Thread

[hauritz]

I have always wondered about ski-jumps in relation to F-35B. If you would want your F-35B to be stealthy then you would only carry internal stores. The F-35B with just internal stores and a fuel load for about 450 nm can take off within 200 meters without the aid of a ski-jump.

The question is whether or not you would ever want to use a fully loaded F-35B operationally. Given that there are other methods of delivering strike packages risking valuable assets such as the F-35 might not even be desirable. It might be of more value as an ISR asset than a strike aircraft.

Just a thought.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Probably on the money there however depends on the target value I'll guess. F-35B ConOps are going to be quite different from those we are familiar. Meanwhile the latest FY 2019 SAR has the F-35B STO with full internals & required radius at 471 feet. See GIF & PDF attached from: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=27020

UK F-35B max weapon load out requires 800 feet with ski jump & I'll guess sufficient WOD & temps etc.

 

[hauritz]

Probably on the money there however depends on the target value I'll guess. F-35B ConOps are going to be quite different from those we are familiar. Meanwhile the latest FY 2019 SAR has the F-35B STO with full internals & required radius at 471 feet. See GIF & PDF attached from: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=27020

UK F-35B max weapon load out requires 800 feet with ski jump & I'll guess sufficient WOD & temps etc.

View attachment 46340

When you crunch those numbers the ski-jump effectively just trims about 150 ft ... or less than 50 meters from the take-off run. The requirement to be able to land again carrying your weapons is also something I didn't consider.

 

[Ananda]

Izumo & Kaga are a few metres longer than Cavour, which was designed to operate F-35B, & the deck's just 1 metre narrower. About the same displacement & power.

Which in theory should enable them to operate 12 - 16 F-35B (or 20 in emergency). This should be enough to handle Liaoning and her modified sister the unnamed 101A, since both of them used Soviet style STOBAR and one F-35B should be more than enough to handle two J-15.

However in my post, I more inclined in inquiry of follow on of Izumo design..which I once see a model of close to 300 m length. I don't know if this is fan made or Japanese industry already prepared larger than Izumo design.

They should've known that after 101A this next Chinese carrier will be bigger and more capable ones. Whether they will used steam or electro magnet catapults, will have to be seen, but certainly will create non STOBAR carrier.

I know it will be political sensitive for them domestically and regionally to have another 'say' pair of next carrier class after converting Izumo's...still if Chinese do make 4 additional carriers as being hinted.. another pair of bigger Japanese carrier is not unthinkable I believe.

If the design on that next carrier is around 300m sized, that'll put them in QE sized. Well they do have enough escorts already to cover 4 carriers (plus 2 Hyuga's).

 

[Redlands18]

Which in theory should enable them to operate 12 - 16 F-35B (or 20 in emergency). This should be enough to handle Liaoning and her modified sister the unnamed 101A, since both of them used Soviet style STOBAR and one F-35B should be more than enough to handle two J-15.

They should've known that after 101A this next Chinese carrier will be bigger and more capable ones. Whether they will used steam or electro magnet catapults, will have to be seen, but certainly will create non STOBAR carrier.

If the design on that next carrier is around 300m sized, that'll put them in QE sized. Well they do have enough escorts already to cover 4 carriers (plus 2 Hyuga's).

The Chinese Carrier will need to use either a EMAL type Catapult or if they go with Steam Catapults it will need to be either Nuclear Powered or return to the old Tech Steam Turbine Engines which I believe are very high maintenance. No one has built a Conventional powered CATOBAR Carrier since the JFK in the late 60s.
Mind you thanks to a very poor Political decision by the Australian Government in the late 80s China got a perfect chance to see exactly how Steam Catapults work.

 

[Redlands18]

Which in theory should enable them to operate 12 - 16 F-35B (or 20 in emergency). This should be enough to handle Liaoning and her modified sister the unnamed 101A, since both of them used Soviet style STOBAR and one F-35B should be more than enough to handle two J-15.

However in my post, I more inclined in inquiry of follow on of Izumo design..which I once see a model of close to 300 m length. I don't know if this is fan made or Japanese industry already prepared larger than Izumo design.

They should've known that after 101A this next Chinese carrier will be bigger and more capable ones. Whether they will used steam or electro magnet catapults, will have to be seen, but certainly will create non STOBAR carrier.

I know it will be political sensitive for them domestically and regionally to have another 'say' pair of next carrier class after converting Izumo's...still if Chinese do make 4 additional carriers as being hinted.. another pair of bigger Japanese carrier is not unthinkable I believe.

If the design on that next carrier is around 300m sized, that'll put them in QE sized. Well they do have enough escorts already to cover 4 carriers (plus 2 Hyuga's).

They could actually form a Battle Group around using both types with a Izumo handling the Fixed Wing Sqn and a Hyuga the ASW and MCM Helicopters escorted by 2-3 Japanese Burkes and 2-3 ASW Frigates backed up by Land Based P-1s that would make a formidable ASW Task Force. the only thing it would lack is a SSN.

 

[SpazSinbad]

When you crunch those numbers the ski-jump effectively just trims about 150 ft ... or less than 50 meters from the take-off run. The requirement to be able to land again carrying your weapons is also something I didn't consider.

Whatever benefit take off length wise there is (with the Harrier the benefit increased a lot with extra WOD - there are articles about this - difficult to get numbers for the F-35 as you probably realise) the safety/operational aspect of the ski jump. Initially the F-35B has what is termed a semi-ballistic trajectory UP. It is always UP no matter if the bow is down in rough seas (that may prevent a conventional flat deck STO or even a catapult). Already the QE/F-35B combo has been tested in sea state 5 with IIRC a WOD of 50 knots plus. The aircraft / pilot safety aspect to be always going UP during takeoff is not insignificant, especially when any emergency arises, extra time to solve it is given, or to eject safely. With respect to the F-35B in STOVL Mode Four (which it is when landing/taking off from a deck) if the aircraft senses a problem that requires automatic ejection then within 0.5 seconds - so be it.

As for the landing part then the KPP is clear for a VL (however we don't know all the details such as fuel) with the SRVL being particularly useful in even hotter, less dense air than specified by the KPP. However from what I have read (and the example of the KPP DEMONSTRATED STO) it seems the F-35B performs better than the specification.

Now that I have been mulling the new demonstrated STO somewhat it would not surprise me if the next SAR corrects the error to change 471 feet to 571 feet. There is a history for the USMC to have changed the length from 550 feet to round it out to 600 feet subsequently a few years ago to much gnashing of teeth from the naysayers. So you see how 571 feet perhaps looks believable - but HEY a SAR should not make such errors eh? Dunno.

A new SAR is likely early next year so - we'll see. An OLD but still useful small PDF about SKI JUMPS may be found here: SKI JUMP INFO VARIOUS Jun 2015 pp151.pdf (11Mb) http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=21005

I guess a more up to date one could be organized but it is obvious the F-35B does well and has been tested well.

Search F-16.net F-35 subforum with this: Search for some useful hits and info/PDFs.

 

[PeterM]

The F-35B acquisition is a significant change in capability for JMSDF.

What kind of air wing would you expect to see as standard with the Izumo's with the F-35B? I expect it would be similar to the Italian Cavour which has similar size. I believe the Cavour will have room for ten F-35Bs in the hangar, and six more parked on deck.

Is it likely the Japanese will be looking into an AEW version of the AW101?

 

[Redlands18]

The F-35B acquisition is a significant change in capability for JMSDF.

What kind of air wing would you expect to see as standard with the Izumo's with the F-35B? I expect it would be similar to the Italian Cavour which has similar size. I believe the Cavour will have room for ten F-35Bs in the hangar, and six more parked on deck.

Is it likely the Japanese will be looking into an AEW version of the AW101?

They do operate the AW-101 in the MCM role but may just rely on Land Based E-2D Hawkeye's

 

[ngatimozart]

The F-35B acquisition is a significant change in capability for JMSDF.

What kind of air wing would you expect to see as standard with the Izumo's with the F-35B? I expect it would be similar to the Italian Cavour which has similar size. I believe the Cavour will have room for ten F-35Bs in the hangar, and six more parked on deck.

Is it likely the Japanese will be looking into an AEW version of the AW101?

Another option may the MV-22 which would give a greater radar horizon and range than the AW101 due to it's higher ceiling and longer legs. They are already looking at it to use in the role similar to the USMC, and the USN have selected it for the COD role, so a AEW role may not be so far fetched. I would not be surprised if the USN was quietly looking at something similar to operate off their LHAs along side the USMC F-35Bs.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Have not heard any recent news about USMC V-22s being tested or becoming operational with roll on roll off Air Refuelling Capability - however this is in the works also.

 

[Redlands18]

Another option may the MV-22 which would give a greater radar horizon and range than the AW101 due to it's higher ceiling and longer legs. They are already looking at it to use in the role similar to the USMC, and the USN have selected it for the COD role, so a AEW role may not be so far fetched. I would not be surprised if the USN was quietly looking at something similar to operate off their LHAs along side the USMC F-35Bs.

hard to know how doable a V-22 AEW system is. The British looked at it and said no despite the obvious improvement in Aircraft performance. The USN would probably have looked at it as a Hawkeye replacement and rejected it.

 

[PeterM]

Doing a little research, there is a proposed AEW version of the V-22 called the EV-22 which was evaluated by the RN. Boeing's proposal used an Osprey with a palletized version of the Thales Cerberus mission system and the Searchwater airborne radar system. Given the cost issues around the RN's new carriers, I can completely understand going with a Merlin AEW solution rather than developing a new system.

Navy Matters | Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control

As far as the USN/USMC is concerned, they have no requirement for an AEW capability from a LHD (or similar) and there is no urgent requirement for any E-2D replacement (which has more endurance and significantly higher service ceiling than the Osprey).

If the JMSDF is wanting an AEW capability, an Osprey option could well be on the table. If they do go down this path, I wonder if something along the lines of Lockheed Martin’s Vigilance system might come into consideration. This uses a pair of AN/APG-81 radars (also used on the F-35) in pods on each side of the aircraft,

 

[the concerned]

They could always build a batch 2 of Izumo's and say they are replacing the Hyuga's with the necessary adjustments to enable F-35 operations

 

[Redlands18]

Doing a little research, there is a proposed AEW version of the V-22 called the EV-22 which was evaluated by the RN. Boeing's proposal used an Osprey with a palletized version of the Thales Cerberus mission system and the Searchwater airborne radar system. Given the cost issues around the RN's new carriers, I can completely understand going with a Merlin AEW solution rather than developing a new system.

Navy Matters | Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control

As far as the USN/USMC is concerned, they have no requirement for an AEW capability from a LHD (or similar) and there is no urgent requirement for any E-2D replacement (which has more endurance and significantly higher service ceiling than the Osprey).

If the JMSDF is wanting an AEW capability, an Osprey option could well be on the table. If they do go down this path, I wonder if something along the lines of Lockheed Martin’s Vigilance system might come into consideration. This uses a pair of AN/APG-81 radars (also used on the F-35) in pods on each side of the aircraft,

There is one advantage a EV-22 would have had over a E-2D, Launch and recovery time. You don't have to use Cats to Launch them or Traps to Catch them.

 

[SpazSinbad]

First the USMC V-22s trialled 'rolling landings and takeoffs' MROL on their LHAs and then a CVN did so recently in anticipation for operating their new CMV-22B COD. These MROLs allow more weight to be carried for take-off and landings (within limits of course) making any extra 'luggage' doable, but I've not seen info other than a graphic about an AEW V-22.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Good video with some Japanese 'word salad' prevarication about 'name calling' their modified for F-35B ops "IZUMO class flat deck destroyer helo carriers". <phew> Particularly I like the 'expert' commentary at the end saying the F-35B can only be used for Fleet Air Defence because it is limited and cannot carry out offensive ops due range limitations. I'm offended.

Analysis: "Aircraft Carrier"Plan in Japan's New Defense Policy 18 Dec 2018 NHK [video in English language]

Analysis: "Aircraft Carrier"Plan in Japan's New Defense Policy- News - NHK WORLD - English

 

[ngatimozart]

Good video with some Japanese 'word salad' prevarication about 'name calling' their modified for F-35B ops "IZUMO class flat deck destroyer helo carriers". <phew> Particularly I like the 'expert' commentary at the end saying the F-35B can only be used for Fleet Air Defence because it is limited and cannot carry out offensive ops due range limitations. I'm offended.

Analysis: "Aircraft Carrier"Plan in Japan's New Defense Policy 18 Dec 2018 NHK [video in English language]

Analysis: "Aircraft Carrier"Plan in Japan's New Defense Policy- News - NHK WORLD - English

He's an expert but being somewhat disingenuous in what he's saying regarding the F-35B capabilities. Much the same as calling their flat tops DDHs. Semantics.

 

[hauritz]

Over the next few decades, I suspect we will see a huge resurgence of the Aircraft carrier. Since WW2 we have only seen the US and to a lesser extent, the UK and perhaps the old USSR operate carriers in any great number. Now you have China, India and by the sounds of things the Japan all planning to operate significant numbers of these ships.

 

[MrConservative]

There is still a lot of sensitivity surrounding the somewhat elastic interpretation of Article 9. There are a lot of Tokyo housewives and OL's (Office Ladies) out there in Nihon voterland who have to be gently convinced.

But of course they the JMSDF have thought of that and there answer is simply brilliant - Namakoro!!

Mondo Mascots on Twitter