I don't understand why...
Don't think paint alone is the solution.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Ship Photo of the Day
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
I don't understand why...
Don't think paint alone is the solution.
Speaking of ski jumps, HMS Furious began life as a short draft battlecruiser armed strangely enough with 2 18" cannons. It was converted into a carrier, and at Operation Mascot against the German dreadnought Tirpitz, used the first ski jump in combat.
Length: 786 ft, Beam: 88 ft, Displacement: 22,890 tons
90,000 HP through 4 shafts gave 31.5 knots
Armament: 10 x 5.5" guns, 6 x 4" guns, 36 aircraft
Commissioned: 26 June 1917, Decommissioned: April 1945
Stern view of Furious in 1917, showing the ship's single 18-inch gun.
Closeup of the ship shortly following its initial conversion and in dazzle paint scheme. An SSZ class blimp is on the after deck
Stern view of Furious taken in 1925, shortly after her reconstruction
An 830 Naval Air Squadron Barracuda taking off from the temporary ski-jump on Furious at the start of Operation Mascot
Of course the shipbuilder is going to claim that they can modify the ship, it would be a boatload full of ¥ for them. To say that the ship was designed from the beginning to operate VSTOL with only 'minor' modifications is a little hard to believe, given the debate about the causes and it supposedly only being able to hold 6-8 jets. If it can only hold that few jets it has to be one the most inefficiently designed modern CVL/LHA/LHD/DDH, since the US equivalent can hold 3-4 times that number of F-35's and other close equivalents can hold 2-3 the Japanese number.
All that doesn't mean the Japanese won't go ahead and do it anyways, they are pretty good at burning money on 'make work' defense projects that cost a lot of money with less return than they could have or should have gotten. One only needs to look at Mitsubishi F-2, which is nothing more than a warmed over F-16 but apparently cost close to 4 times the amount of a roughly equivalent version of the F-16. Then there is the US-2, the Kawasaki C-2, and so on....
How is a single ship with less than a squadron's strength of aircraft going to do in that scenario, especially with limited availability? Even a well-trained and experienced navy would be hard pressed to fly more than a handful of sorties in support of any wartime operation with only 8 jets, and that doesn't include all the ancillary complications you encounter when operating in a stressing wartime scenario.
One only needs to look at the experience of the Brits in the Falklands, where the task force deployed with cumulative total of 42 Harriers and Sea Harriers against spirited but outmoded opponents lost 9 (or 10) Harriers in a single month of combat operations to hostile fire (4) or accidents (5 or 6). While the weather was challenging that is still over 20% of the force against a inferior opponent with a mere 5 air-launched ASCM's, a sub force that literally could not shoot straight or submerge and an air force with second-hand aircraft and bombs that had issues blowing up. I shudder to think how a Japanese CVL would fare against a far more formidable opponent like the PLA (PLAAF/PLAN/PLANAF) that has hundreds of modern fighters and bombers, thousands of ASCM's, scores of subs and a carrier or two of their own.
And that doesn't even scratch the surface of all the support needed like escorts, Japan only has 6 Aegis-DDG's that already have another mission called homeland defense which is kind of important, resupply at sea, AEW support, and on....
All this smacks of a vanity or purely political project, a lot like Russia's Kuznetsov, that will have limited military utility.
Japan already has 2 helicopter carriers - the 650 ft Hyuga class. Therefore I would not be surprised that the 840 ft class Izumo class was designed with the F-35 in mind. I doubt if Japan would build a carrier that big and not have a plan for fixed wing. I mentioned earlier that in WW2 the Japanese Navy built the Mogami class light cruiser - but the turret rings were designed to take heavy cruiser weaponry. When the treaty restrictions went by the wayside, their navy literally pulled off the 6" gun turrets and replaced them with 8" gun turrets - instant heavy cruiser. As for how many jets it will carry, who knows - but I bet it will be substantially more than 8.
As for the example of the Falklands, I don't think that is the appropriate metric as Japan will not be trying to land troops in China. The better example would be blue water as far away from Chinese land bases as possible trying to bring in raw materials from across the Pacific.
The JSDF, much less the JMSDF, would probably be extremely hard pressed to do anything other than homeland defense in any scenario with China that goes hot today, and their odds aren't likely to get better in the foreseeable future.
Their homeland is already well inside the WEZ of many PLA weapons, both land and sea based.
It is not realistic to expect the JSDF to singlehandedly keep its Pacific sea lanes open, CVL's or no.
Last edited:
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Yes as any leadship of the class that is "first" in so many aspects. All in all, forget about Kuznetsov. The most optimistic term she will be ready for operations after sinking within the floating dock is 2023, when the ship will be 33 years old. Such age for Russian surface ship - due to mostly traditionally poor maintenance - is the death warrant in itself.
As for the Japanese CVLs I'd prefer not to believe much to the Japanese military press. What JMSDF should do first is to get the Diet's approval to add the F-35B fleet to the ships' main task - the ASW. I don't think that would be much easier than to adapt the ships to carry those jets...
They may have had a plan, more probably a bright idea, but it does not appear to have been a very well thought out one.
Funny you should mention the Mogami-class; "Mogami and Mikuma were plagued with technical problems due to their untested equipment, welding defects, and also proved to be top-heavy with stability problems in heavy weather. Both vessels, and their yet-to-be-completed sisters, Kumano and Suzuya underwent a complete and very costly rebuilding program."
Belief is a powerful thing but it ain't going to fit more F-35B's than physically possible on a ship.
Since the Falklands is the only real-world example of CVL's operating in war without CV/CVN support it is about as appropriate as you can get. Not only that the scenario of two countries fighting over some islands a distance from both countries is about as realistic a scenario you can get for a conflict between Japan and China right now.
You are right that it isn't an appropriate metric in one respect, China is a far more formidable opponent than Argentina.
This makes even less sense, if you are trying to get supplies across open ocean your most likely threat is going to be from submarines and the DDH's would be best utilized as ASW assets as they were originally designed. With few exceptions CVE's in the Atlantic were used as ASW assets, and they did the job very effectively, DDG/FFG's could easily take care of MPA threats.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but what specifically limits them to 8 F-35’s physically possible to fit? The ships are nearly as large as our LHD’s, and I realize there’s more to it than that, but what specifically is the issue?
I don't know what the issue is but I've consistently seen the numbers 6-8 to 10 (the numbers I seen most often) or even 12 F-35B's in press reports about the planned modifications to the vessels.
To my amateur eye the Izumo-class appear to have considerably more tapered hull with the resultant reduced hangar space, with a lot less beam at the waterline than at the flight deck, than our own LHA/LHD's and or even comparable Brit, Italian and Spanish CVL's that have much wider beams below the flight deck and even down the waterline for some. The US, UK, Italian and Spanish LHD/LHA/CVL's were all also built from the keel up to operate VSTOL fighters from the day they were commissioned whereas the Japanese have to 'modify' theirs just a few years after launching them.
I also question if they have the requisite fuel, supply and ammunition capacity to handle anything more than a handful of tactical jet aircraft, given the Japanese Navy's lack of experience operating such aircraft for over 73 years now.
JDS Izumo
USS Bonhomme Richard
Giuseppe Garibaldi
8-12 F-35s are gonna burn a lot of fuel if you fly them either for a week of surge ops or in a real war when an UNREP the day after tomorrow isn’t a sure thing.
The Japanese are smart and they know that. I’m just curious how big the aviation fuel tanks are on her.
The Japanese are smart and they know that. I’m just curious how big the aviation fuel tanks are on her.
Ah, the rare photo when she's not broke dick tied up to the pier.
(Why yes, I worked RIMPAC 18, how could you tell?
)
All of us here know the London Naval Treaty caused problems with ship design as the engineers tried to do too much - the Mogami class was not alone. That said, the Japanese thought about the future when designing those ships and I would not be surprised if the Izumo class was the same.
If Japan goes through with this, it will be interesting to see what complement of aircraft are carried. I still suspect substantially more than 6 to 8 F-35's, possibly in conjunction with some V-22s - we will see in a few year's time.
Happened upon a couple of articles from Australia discussing the ship in relation to the HMS Hermes and the HMAS Canberra. http://australianaviation.com.au/20...bs-to-operate-off-modified-aircraft-carriers/ (note: HMS Hermes was a conventional steam catapult carrier before being converted, HMAS Canberra is a purpose built amphibious ship with a well deck.)
...this 27,000 ton (full load) capital ship, Izumo sports a full-length, 248 metre flight deck, an all-round visibility flight control island, and a hull that has been subtly sponsoned out to a 38m beam at flight-deck level. To put this non-carrier into perspective, the new Izumo is almost exactly the same size, shape and displacement as the Royal Navy’s old HMS Hermes: the flag ship of the task force that recaptured the Falklands. At the height of that conflict, Hermes operated 26 Harrier jump jets and 10 Sea King helicopters.
However, the Australian HMAS Canberra class is nearly as big and already includes a ski-jump, but the Aussies state: “There were just too many technical difficulties involved in modifying a ship which takes helicopters to take fighter jets and it is also very expensive,” the report quotes a source as saying. “You can safely say it has been dropped.”
Looking forward to seeing how this plays out.
HMS Hermes returning from the Falkland Islands
British Aerospace Harrier GR.3s of No. 1 Squadron RAF and Royal Navy Sea Harrier FR.1s on the flight deck of HMS HERMES during the deployment to the Falkland Islands, 19 May 1982.
I wonder if that is a subtle way of saying that they didn't build it with big enough fuel tanks, if it's just impossible to stuff more than a handful of airplanes inside the hangar, if the deck-elevator-island layout doesn't lend itself to fixed wing flight ops, or...?
Perhaps the well deck just eats up too much space. By not having the well deck, the Izumo class might have more options for future development.
What use would ospreys be on the Izumo? They’re big, and other that potentially being a marginal refueler what’s the point? Weren’t the ships originally meant to be anti submarine helicopter platforms?