- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #21
got it one. - and they're not keen on other subs
without being too flippant and cavalier, skimmers are targets
Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force Thread
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
without being too flippant and cavalier, skimmers are targets
Its a laugh at work with the assorted ex submariners and skimmers having digs at each other even the steam navy boys dishing it out to the GT fairies, nothing more tribal than sailors.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
one of the blokes I used to work for when I was in another life was a nuke driver, he was always flipping out periscope happy snaps to show the ASW skimmers "how good they were"
the same stuff happens with rotors, except the skimmers are always reminding the rotors that they won't have anywhere to land if they don't ratchett it back.
I wonder how many Hyugas or 22DDH type helo carriers you could buy / build for the same money 8 ANZAC replacements will cost? 3 to 5 by any chance?one of the blokes I used to work for when I was in another life was a nuke driver, he was always flipping out periscope happy snaps to show the ASW skimmers "how good they were"
the same stuff happens with rotors, except the skimmers are always reminding the rotors that they won't have anywhere to land if they don't ratchett it back.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
You'd need to subtract a bit to cover additional OPV builds to cover exercises and other commitments?
Maybe build 6 to 8 of the OPVs as corvettes / light frigates using recycled 76mm guns, Phalanx and 8 cell VLS and CEAPAR. Cover the loss in numbers available to BPC by building extra Cape Class PBs.
Way off topic but boy would I love to see something like the Hyuga in numbers in the RAN.
I don't think the RAN could run 'numbers' of them. The much larger JMSDF has built two 16DDH & AFAIK is planning two 22DDH. Hyūga-class crew is small for the size of the ship, but still at least twice as much as an Anzac or Hobart, & I'm not sure if that includes the aviation group.
There's also the question of how many ASW helicopters the RAN can sustain. Hyūga can carry 11 at a time. Not much point in having ships you can't fill.
Making up numbers with OPVs without their own helicopters leaves you without helicopters able to operate except where the 16DDH goes. OK for the JMSDF, which has enough frigates to have numbers operating independently of the Hyūga-class led flotillas, but not for the RAN, I think.
There's also the question of how many ASW helicopters the RAN can sustain. Hyūga can carry 11 at a time. Not much point in having ships you can't fill.
Making up numbers with OPVs without their own helicopters leaves you without helicopters able to operate except where the 16DDH goes. OK for the JMSDF, which has enough frigates to have numbers operating independently of the Hyūga-class led flotillas, but not for the RAN, I think.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Who said the OPV's wouldn't have helicopters?
The RAN needs as many helicopters as they can beat out of the government, I mean...everyone keeps saying that there are so many potentially hostile submarines in the region.....
HMAS Canberra and Adelaide should be able to carry ~60 Helicopters between them if used in an ASW Configuration? I'm sure that would be sufficient.
Would be nice if they could go a bit faster though.
The RAN needs as many helicopters as they can beat out of the government, I mean...everyone keeps saying that there are so many potentially hostile submarines in the region.....
HMAS Canberra and Adelaide should be able to carry ~60 Helicopters between them if used in an ASW Configuration? I'm sure that would be sufficient.
Would be nice if they could go a bit faster though.
Well we did used to run three CFA DDGs with crews of 333 or so at the same time as a CVL with a mix of DDs, DEs and FFs, later FFGs, DEs and for a short time FFGs and ANZACs. In days of old, when our population was much smaller than today, we manned multiple cruisers, two heavy and four light leading upto and during WWII, while WWI we had a BC and a number of light cruisers.
It comes down to political will and funding unfortunately both are lacking.
Happy to show photos from our birdies on a MEAO trip which had a very nice picture of a large metal object 20m below the waterline, all it needed was a big USN on the side...its a vicious circle out thereone of the blokes I used to work for when I was in another life was a nuke driver, he was always flipping out periscope happy snaps to show the ASW skimmers "how good they were"
the same stuff happens with rotors, except the skimmers are always reminding the rotors that they won't have anywhere to land if they don't ratchett it back.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
That sounds like fun!Happy to show photos from our birdies on a MEAO trip which had a very nice picture of a large metal object 20m below the waterline, all it needed was a big USN on the side...its a vicious circle out there
I bet the captain of that sub wasnt to impressed...
The 22DDH is larger than the Hyuga but I can't help but wonder if a smaller ship could achieve the same (publicised) mission set as the Hyuga.
The Hyuga is a through deck destroyer, Invincible was originally termed a through deck cruiser, why not a through deck frigate?
My thinking is in this day and age helicopters and UAVs are becoming more and more capable so the more ships that can operate a variety of these the better. ASW, ASVW, MCM, AEW, SOF support, assault, you name it. I would suggest that a helo carrier with a decent self defence capability and escorted by an AWD would be more capable and versatile than any conventional surface combatant.
The Hyuga is a through deck destroyer, Invincible was originally termed a through deck cruiser, why not a through deck frigate?
My thinking is in this day and age helicopters and UAVs are becoming more and more capable so the more ships that can operate a variety of these the better. ASW, ASVW, MCM, AEW, SOF support, assault, you name it. I would suggest that a helo carrier with a decent self defence capability and escorted by an AWD would be more capable and versatile than any conventional surface combatant.
Because if you had 'numbers' of 16DDHs, you'd go broke just filling them with helicopters, & have nothing to spare.Who said the OPV's wouldn't have helicopters?
The RAN needs as many helicopters as they can beat out of the government, ...
Perhaps not the role of flotilla leader/helicopter support ship for lily pad DEs/light frigates/OPVs. There must be a minimum size for that.
Used to. Remind me how recruitment & retention are doing nowadays.
Helicopter carriers are relatively easy ships to acquire and crew. It’s the air wing that is the problem. And if the RAN was going to be funded for this kind naval aviation expansion the money would be much better going into a balanced air wing of F-35s and more ASW helos. The RAN has $1.5-2 billion of projects in the DCP for capabilities that would be provided far more effectively by a naval strike fighter force: extended range air defence (SM6) and surface ship “strategic” strike (SEA 1350, SEA 4000/4 and SEA 5000/3). This is where the need is far more than doubling out ASW helo capability.
t68
Well-Known Member
With an ever increasing number of submarines starting to turn up now and in the future in the Pacific and surrounding areas the RAN might have to bite the bullet and look into large dedicated ASW assets with numerous helicopters available. Three Hyuga class ASW ships would do wonder’s for the RAN but I just cannot see government handing over the cash when they will point to the Canberra class, primary duties of the dedicated ASW frigate will be to screen for the Canberra.
A ship that I am quite a fan off is the 8000t RSN Endurance class LPD, the ship I believe that the kiwis should have acquired over the HMNZS Canterbury MRV. Now if the stern door and well dock were to be converted into a aircraft elevator and hanger I would imagine their would be enough room for about 6 MH-60R, with a crew of 65 plus those required for flight operations, she has the ability to self escort to a degree but would be happier if a Mk-41 VLS could be fitted for added protection, a larger propulsion system might have to be installed to increase the speed of the ship so as to keep up with speed of the Canberra class.
I believe a class of four working together with 8 future Frigates and 4 Hobart class AWD would provide the RAN with a better overall force balance for future threats the RAN might find herself with. It would also give the RAN another asset if need for limited sea lift with the bow doors available for Ro/Ro operations.
http://www.stengg.com/upload/572N81fXA1DTA3OViRd.pdf
Thoughts
You've just designed a new ship, for a completely different role.
More speed, & you don't want the dock? Then you'd be better off using a new hull, rather than just trying to make a hull not designed for it go faster with more power. Mk41, & the sensors to go with it? Major redesign of forward part of ship. New propulsion? Redesign of interior spaces. Much larger crew needed. What's left of the original?
What you describe is akin to the 1960s Italian & French helicopter cruisers. Look up Vittorio Veneto.
I remember reading a magazine years ago (mid 80s I think) that had an article that included the estimated cost of having a new Invincible built and a seperate article on the Seahawk program, including the modification of the first three FFGs to operate them. The reason I remember it was the cost of the Seahawk program was higher than a new build Invincible which could have used the existing Seakings and Wessex helos.
Don't know how accurate the mag was or even how good my memory of its contents is but its something to think on.
SteelTiger 177
New Member
I think Japan needs to look at developing a Stovl capabale carrier given the threat posed by both the PLAN and North Korean navies in the areas of submarine and mine threats.As for plans for a helicopter-carrier i wonder aside from troop carrying could this carrier be capable of supporting mine clearing forces as was the case with the 2 Iwo-Jima class ships Guadalcanal and Inchon. Also if the JMSDF were to build these stovl capable carriers would the the JMSDF BE adding a fighter force to its T.O.E. or will these pilots be JASDF personel?(I ask this because it reminds me of another discussion on the RAN possibly aquiring carriers for themselves
Does the JMSDF Plan on any ospreys to work off the decks of their 22DDH?
I know there was speculation because of a few changes in the Design of the ships from the previous classes. However i didn't know if anyone had heard anything.
I know they are also supposed to be capable of handling F-35's so.
I know there was speculation because of a few changes in the Design of the ships from the previous classes. However i didn't know if anyone had heard anything.
I know they are also supposed to be capable of handling F-35's so.