Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_F-22A_0140-1.jpg

Nellis_B-1_0096-1.jpg

Nellis_HH-60_0041-1.jpg

Nellis_F-15E_0082-1.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force Thread

This is a discussion on Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force Thread within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old October 15th, 2011   #16
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Same as Hyuuga & Ise, & they really are helicopter ships. There have been plenty of other helicopter carriers around that speed, e.g. the non-through deck helicopter cruisers Jeanne d'Arc & Vittorio Veneto. You could also count Andrea Doria & Caio Duilio, though they'd be thought of as just destroyers (or even frigates) with large flight decks now.

Even the Invincible class was originally intended for helicopters only, with a Vittorio Veneto style deck being considered before the through deck configuration was adopted.
The speed of the ship is all about how it is meant to be used. Helicopter carriers for use in amphibious assaults like the Iwo Jima class only have ~20 knot speeds because this is the post war fast convoy requirement. A helicopter carrier like the ships Swerve has mentioned above are conceived to operate as part of the fleet so are as fast as the other combatant ships. Just because they all carry helicopters doesn’t mean all such ships need to be similar across the board.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2011   #17
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,535
Threads:
Well I would imagine these are to be used for ASW. They don't appear to be designed around amphibious operations. However thats pretty big for a pure asw helo carrier.

I wonder if we will see this ship, the Canberra class and the Korean Dokdo class operating together.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2011   #18
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,933
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
Well I would imagine these are to be used for ASW. They don't appear to be designed around amphibious operations. However thats pretty big for a pure asw helo carrier.
Actually, if you look at the desicated ASW Hunter Killer Task Forces from the cold war, the carriers dedicated to ASW support were much bigger.

the reason for having a large carrier or capacity for rotors is because it increases your saturation and ipso facto, persistence footprint.

3 helos working a sub in unison is not a jolly time for the sub.
3 flights of 3 working the area is the equiv of sending in the cleaners...
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2011   #19
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,504
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
Well I would imagine these are to be used for ASW. They don't appear to be designed around amphibious operations. However thats pretty big for a pure asw helo carrier.
ASW is exactly what Hyuuga & Ise (BTW, I'll be in the city of Ise 3 weeks from now) are designed for.

The reasoning seems to be very similar to that which produced the Invincible class (slightly larger than Hyuuga). The Japanese have some light frigates/DEs with limited helicopter support facilities. One Hyuuga can not only be an effective ASW ship on its own, but extend the reach of those smaller ships, as a flotilla leader. Here we get something like the reasoning behind early iterations of the Type 23, a relatively low-end ASW vessel operating with a mothership.

Thus we see that for the 16DDH class there is no need to imagine that the ships are some kind of proto STOVL carrier.

The new ships are more of the same, but apparently designed to be more general purpose. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the possibility of future F-35B operations was considered when deciding on their size, but they don't depend on F-35B to be valuable. Think of it as prudence, allowing for possible future requirements in ways that don't compromise current needs.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011   #20
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,316
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
Actually, if you look at the desicated ASW Hunter Killer Task Forces from the cold war, the carriers dedicated to ASW support were much bigger.

the reason for having a large carrier or capacity for rotors is because it increases your saturation and ipso facto, persistence footprint.

3 helos working a sub in unison is not a jolly time for the sub.
3 flights of 3 working the area is the equiv of sending in the cleaners...
I have read that in 1950s planning the RN saw each ASW helo on station as equivalent to a specialist ASW frigate and could replace such in the taskforce screen. i.e. three ASW helos were worth an ASW frigate. The fact that a modern ASW helo can dip and sprint so efficiently makes them even more effective. Submariners don't fear skimmers, its the helos that give them issues.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011   #21
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,933
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Submariners don't fear skimmers, its the helos that give them issues.
got it one. - and they're not keen on other subs

without being too flippant and cavalier, skimmers are targets
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011   #22
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,316
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
got it one. - and they're not keen on other subs

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.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011   #23
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,933
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
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.
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.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011   #24
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,316
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
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?
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011   #25
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central NSW
Posts: 1,688
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
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?
You'd need to subtract a bit to cover additional OPV builds to cover exercises and other commitments?
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011   #26
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,316
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevoJH View Post
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.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011   #27
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,504
Threads:
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.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011   #28
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central NSW
Posts: 1,688
Threads:
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.
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #29
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,316
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
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.
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.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #30
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
icelord's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,220
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
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.
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
icelord is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:36 AM.