t68
Well-Known Member
With no ramp on the Japanese carrier and being 13m shorter than a Wasp/America class will F35B be able to use the deck?
Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force Thread
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Why would that matter? It is not like the the entire length of the deck is being used for taking off. Video shows that the F35B's takeoff roll starts at around mid-deck ( the port side elevator is not seen)
The real problem with cross decking would more likely be if the recieving vessel's deck surfacing had been treated for the intense heat generated by the F35B's engines.
F-35B Short Takeoff from the USS Wasp - YouTube
Shouldn't be an issue, the ski ramp allows A/C to get off with more weight in less distance - if you just wanted to get one on board, taxi it a bit, then back off as an exercise, then an SRVL landing to minimise heat on the deck, rolling take off on partial internal fuel and an AtoA load should be easy to do.
It's possible and I suspect it'd be an interesting sales tool. They're big ships, y'know
Ian
IIRC this is one of the roles of her smaller (but still large) predecessors: supporting other elements of an ASW flotilla, as well as operating her own helicopters.
t68
Well-Known Member
Your most probably correct. Those testswith F35B will be most likely at min weight is the distance the same at MTOW?
Shouldn't be a problem. The F-35B KPP calls for the jet to takeoff in 600 feet carrying 2 X JDAM and 2 X AMRAAM and enough internal fuel to fly 450nm off a flat-deck LHD/LHA. Previously, the KPP was 550 feet but the actual takeoff distance has been measured at around 568 feet so the requirement was relaxed a tad.
HurricaneDitka
New Member
U.S. sees second foreign buyer for V-22 Osprey in six months
Sounds like Japan may be getting Ospreys soon. I wonder if they'd fly them off their "helicopter destroyers" regularly or just keep them on land.
Sounds like Japan may be getting Ospreys soon. I wonder if they'd fly them off their "helicopter destroyers" regularly or just keep them on land.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
I would think basing them aboard ship will be dependent on if they are able to be moved to the hanger.
As the Hyuga-class only have central deck elevators. It would depend on their dimensions. Folded, the V-22 is 63 ft long & 18 and 1/2 ft wide.
Now, I don't know for certain if the H-60 or AW101 the JMSDF use have folding tail booms. But the H-60's fuselage length is under 51 ft. Whereas the AW101 is just over 63 ft, but when folded for stowing in is under 52 ft long.
The elevator dimensions aren't as much of a problem on the Izumo-class, as along with one central decl elevator they have a single starboard side one.
HurricaneDitka
New Member
Apparently the Marines already did this in June 2013:
Marines land Osprey on Japanese ship, a first | UTSanDiego.com
Photo on Hyuga's elevator
Photo in Hyuga's hangar
What does it state?
There's no specific restriction on any weapon or platform - what happened was that the Japanese stated that they'd forgo means of making offensive war, ie, they'd be defensive in nature only.
If they decide that a carrier of some sort is required to defend the homeland, they can just declare that as a statement of policy. There's no direct legal barrier, just some political upheaval.
If they decide that a carrier of some sort is required to defend the homeland, they can just declare that as a statement of policy. There's no direct legal barrier, just some political upheaval.
None of that is in the surrender document or any post-war treaty. Indeed, the Treaty of San Francisco explicitly recognises Japan's right to defend itself -
The only legal restriction on Japanese policy or military strength is Article 9 of the constitution of Japan, drawn up in 1946 by Japanese under US supervision, & promulgated in 1947. As StobieWan says, that does not mention any specific weapon or platform.
There is nothing stopping them. There is also a need.
Japan frets over coming absence of US aircraft carriers- Nikkei Asian Review
Not having an american carrier presence for 4 months of the year, particularly as things are getting warmer in the SCS is worrying.
Yes, I believe Japan will seek to establish its own carrier capability eventually. They have the capability to do it. While I don't think Izumo would be the basis, the design shows potential to be adapted.
This is a long bow. I assume they mean helicopter carriers or amphibious or troop carriers, not aircraft carriers. But as a justification, it reads as if Australia has already taken measures to build a large fleet of carriers to fill in for the American fleet.
HurricaneDitka
New Member
Do you think they'd ever get to nuclear carrier(s) with cats & traps or just STOVL stuff?
They would only be interested in STOVL. Japan has showed no interest in nuclear powered ships or submarines despite a large nuclear sector within the country.
I do wonder if the US could fill the void using the America Class ships.
The nuclear issue would be politically unacceptable - US nuclear carriers weren't allowed to even dock for decades (in fact, the Japanese channelled cash through a back door to fund repairs and maintenance to one of the US's last conventional carriers to keep it in service so they could have local carrier cover without the furore of a CVN in harbour.
Technically, I'm sure, given the funding, they could do it but politically no way..
Technically, I'm sure, given the funding, they could do it but politically no way..
With the F-35B closing the performance gap with land based combat aircraft STOVL would perfectly adequate, in fact a light carrier with Lightnings would likely have a higher sortie generation rate than a CTOL medium carrier. Factor in that there are no longer any fix wing carrier based ASW aircraft in production and that even the USN has switched to using helicopters exclusively for the role from their carriers there is now no advantage in having CTOL in anything other than super carriers.
Also I would love it if Australia was building a fleet of carriers and although I see it as justified and affordable I can't see it happening. Three to five light or medium carriers, each supported by a DDG, an FFG, a multi-role tanker / support ship and a pair of LCS / corvette / FFL type vessels would be sweet and probably not much more expensive than our currently planned fleet, especially if we leased five or six Virginias instead of buying / building 8-12 bespoke conventional submarines to replace the Collins class.
Also I would love it if Australia was building a fleet of carriers and although I see it as justified and affordable I can't see it happening. Three to five light or medium carriers, each supported by a DDG, an FFG, a multi-role tanker / support ship and a pair of LCS / corvette / FFL type vessels would be sweet and probably not much more expensive than our currently planned fleet, especially if we leased five or six Virginias instead of buying / building 8-12 bespoke conventional submarines to replace the Collins class.