Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




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; Originally Posted by icelord Happy to show photos from our birdies on a MEAO trip which had a very nice ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old October 20th, 2011   #31
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central NSW
Posts: 1,695
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by icelord View Post
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
That sounds like fun!

I bet the captain of that sub wasnt to impressed...
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #32
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,381
Threads:
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.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #33
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,549
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevoJH View Post
Who said the OPV's wouldn't have helicopters?

The RAN needs as many helicopters as they can beat out of the government, ...
Because if you had 'numbers' of 16DDHs, you'd go broke just filling them with helicopters, & have nothing to spare.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #34
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,549
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
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..
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
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.
Used to. Remind me how recruitment & retention are doing nowadays.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #35
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,270
Threads:
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.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2011   #36
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,602
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
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.
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
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2011   #37
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,549
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
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.

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.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2011   #38
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,381
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
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.
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.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2011   #39
Junior Member
Private First Class
SteelTiger 177's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: I live in Sierra Vista Arizona since November 2001
Posts: 85
Threads:
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
SteelTiger 177 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2011   #40
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA,TN
Posts: 553
Threads:
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.
Belesari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2011   #41
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,991
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTiger 177 View Post
I ask this because it reminds me of another discussion on the RAN possibly aquiring carriers for themselves
the RAN is not acquiring fixed wing aircraft carriers of any type
________________
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 28th, 2011   #42
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,381
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
the RAN is not acquiring fixed wing aircraft carriers of any type
However the first of 3 submarine helicopter carriers (SSGLVH) is due to enter service in 2030.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2011   #43
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,991
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
However the first of 3 submarine helicopter carriers (SSGLVH) is due to enter service in 2030.
you're just a troublemaker....
________________
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 28th, 2011   #44
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central NSW
Posts: 1,695
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
you're just a troublemaker....
Its funny though.
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2011   #45
Defense Enthusiast
Major
kev 99's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 872
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
However the first of 3 submarine helicopter carriers (SSGLVH) is due to enter service in 2030.
Are these carriers of submersible helicopters or submersible carriers of helicopters?

kev 99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:56 AM.