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 kev 99 Are these carriers of submersible helicopters or submersible carriers of helicopters? Both...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old October 28th, 2011   #46
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kev 99 View Post
Are these carriers of submersible helicopters or submersible carriers of helicopters?

Both
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2011   #47
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,683
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belesari View Post
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.
Big enough to operate F-35B, but not necessarily equipped for it. No ski-jump planned, & without that it couldn't operate F-35B efficiently.

No word on Osprey that I've heard.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2011   #48
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32
Threads:
Quote:
However the first of 3 submarine helicopter carriers (SSGLVH) is due to enter service in 2030
I see that some has been paying to much attention to the last chapters of Dragon's Fury by Jeff Head.
Despite the Futuristic Approach I liked that book in the sense that many of the things he describes are becoming reality
mankyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2011   #49
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA,TN
Posts: 553
Threads:
AH ok i had read in a few places that some of the design changes from previous ships were to allow it to use both the osprey and F-35B.

And why would the F-35 not be able to fly off it? I mean US amphibs dont have ski jumps and they are going to use them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Big enough to operate F-35B, but not necessarily equipped for it. No ski-jump planned, & without that it couldn't operate F-35B efficiently.

No word on Osprey that I've heard.
Belesari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2011   #50
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mankyle View Post
I see that some has been paying to much attention to the last chapters of Dragon's Fury by Jeff Head.
Despite the Futuristic Approach I liked that book in the sense that many of the things he describes are becoming reality
I haven't actually read it, might need to check it out.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2011   #51
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32
Threads:
Quote:
And why would the F-35 not be able to fly off it? I mean US amphibs dont have ski jumps and they are going to use them?
Yes but the overall effectivity of the F-35B would increase substantially with an Sky-jump.

I always though that the original design for the Hyugas was too small. It happens the same with the previous spanish and italian designs. The Giuseppe Garibaldi and the Principe the Asturias designs work perfectly with Harriers but have serious limitations for its use with the F-35.

Hyugas are strictly Chopper Carriers. For having a good taking off path, for example, the bow Phalanx should be removed. Take a look at the preliminary designs and see how all weapons are located on sponsons on the sides of the hull.
mankyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2011   #52
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central NSW
Posts: 1,705
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mankyle View Post
I see that some has been paying to much attention to the last chapters of Dragon's Fury by Jeff Head.
Despite the Futuristic Approach I liked that book in the sense that many of the things he describes are becoming reality
I hated that book......stopped reading somewhere in the middle....I kept thinking "it has to get better.....right?"
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2011   #53
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 32
Threads:
Quote:
I hated that book......stopped reading somewhere in the middle....I kept thinking "it has to get better.....right?"
Unfortunately It doesn't become better. The writing style is horrible, the characters very plain, the tactics stupid and full of forced situations. And in the end when he starts describing orbital bombardments, and technologies fifty years advanced,.....

About the only thing I liked was the plausibility of the multi polar world we are now facing.
- The rise of china
- The deacy of the US and Europe.
- The rise of India and radical islamic states

But I agree is horrible. To download the pdf, try to read it and then press "delete".
mankyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2011   #54
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mankyle View Post
Unfortunately It doesn't become better. The writing style is horrible, the characters very plain, the tactics stupid and full of forced situations. And in the end when he starts describing orbital bombardments, and technologies fifty years advanced,.....

About the only thing I liked was the plausibility of the multi polar world we are now facing.
- The rise of china
- The deacy of the US and Europe.
- The rise of India and radical islamic states

But I agree is horrible. To download the pdf, try to read it and then press "delete".
OK so I wont bother looking for it then.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2011   #55
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central NSW
Posts: 1,705
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mankyle View Post
But I agree is horrible. To download the pdf, try to read it and then press "delete".
Probably why its available on his website for free rather then for sale on Amazon or some other site.
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2011   #56
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,683
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belesari View Post
AH ok i had read in a few places that some of the design changes from previous ships were to allow it to use both the osprey and F-35B.

And why would the F-35 not be able to fly off it? I mean US amphibs dont have ski jumps and they are going to use them?
I didn't say that F-35B won't be able to fly off it. Note the word 'efficiently'. It's there because it has meaning.

The US LHAs & LHDs are bigger (though only slightly longer), & sacrifice efficiency in operating STOVL fighters in favour of maximising the number of helicopter spots, because their main role is seen as amphibious operations.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2011   #57
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,767
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
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.
Hi swerve,
Yes I have seen the Vittorio Veneto previously but had forgotten about her she is just the ticket that I was thinking of, but unfortunately she is well and truly out of production.

These type of vessel are going out of favour in their place are Cavour which you know about and the Japanese Haruna class by the Hyuga class, which are well outside the size of vessel to which I had envisioned and one that might pass muster with the bean counters and not say look another aircraft carrier.

St Marine has just not long ago finished the HTMS Angthong an Endurance class ship for SGD 200 million which works out roughly 151 million AUD or 50 million more than HMAS Choules which we just bought, yes it will need to be redesigned in some areas but I think it would be cheaper than a Hyuga class not as efficient either, but for the RAN needs working with the NGF. I did find a 2005 price on a Korean Dokdo which may or may not represent the price of a Hyuga class 326 million KRW which is roughly 280 million AUD.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2011   #58
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,425
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Hi swerve,
Yes I have seen the Vittorio Veneto previously but had forgotten about her she is just the ticket that I was thinking of, but unfortunately she is well and truly out of production.

These type of vessel are going out of favour in their place are Cavour which you know about and the Japanese Haruna class by the Hyuga class, which are well outside the size of vessel to which I had envisioned and one that might pass muster with the bean counters and not say look another aircraft carrier.

St Marine has just not long ago finished the HTMS Angthong an Endurance class ship for SGD 200 million which works out roughly 151 million AUD or 50 million more than HMAS Choules which we just bought, yes it will need to be redesigned in some areas but I think it would be cheaper than a Hyuga class not as efficient either, but for the RAN needs working with the NGF. I did find a 2005 price on a Korean Dokdo which may or may not represent the price of a Hyuga class 326 million KRW which is roughly 280 million AUD.
The sad truth is the Hyuga / Cavour etc are not on the cards for the RAN so trying to work out what we could afford instead really is a waste of time and way off topic.

My ideal RAN would include roughly equal numbers of AWDs, GP FFGs and 22DDH type platforms supported by OCVs and a class of JSS types to replace our AOR and tanker. Land attack would be the responsibility of the expanded submarine fleet and air launched ordinance (land and, in an ideal world, sea based) meaning the planned 8 GP FFGs would not need this capability and the number of hulls could actually be reduced to provide money and crews for the Helo carriers.

A 22DDH type vessel would look very nice with a roo painted on the island, a ski jump on the bow and several F-35Bs spoted on the deck. Pipe dream I know but one can always hope.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2011   #59
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,767
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
The sad truth is the Hyuga / Cavour etc are not on the cards for the RAN so trying to work out what we could afford instead really is a waste of time and way off topic.

My ideal RAN would include roughly equal numbers of AWDs, GP FFGs and 22DDH type platforms supported by OCVs and a class of JSS types to replace our AOR and tanker. Land attack would be the responsibility of the expanded submarine fleet and air launched ordinance (land and, in an ideal world, sea based) meaning the planned 8 GP FFGs would not need this capability and the number of hulls could actually be reduced to provide money and crews for the Helo carriers.

A 22DDH type vessel would look very nice with a roo painted on the island, a ski jump on the bow and several F-35Bs spoted on the deck. Pipe dream I know but one can always hope.

Hey dreams are free mate,
Like you I cannot see an ASW carrier in the RAN, I was thinking more along the line of a ship with limited frigate capability and expanded helicopter facility’s, with a max of 6 helicopter on board to work in tandem once a object is identified to give life hell to who ever sub driver is down their plus screening the LHD to free up space for other equipment needed for the mission on hand. I sort of wished the government did take the opportunity at the time to get HMS Ark Royal to use as a helicopter carrier but that’s all water under the bridge now; get her cheap with a part RN/RAN crew
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2011   #60
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,683
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
St Marine has just not long ago finished the HTMS Angthong an Endurance class ship for SGD 200 million which works out roughly 151 million AUD or 50 million more than HMAS Choules which we just bought, yes it will need to be redesigned in some areas but I think it would be cheaper than a Hyuga class not as efficient either, but for the RAN needs working with the NGF. I did find a 2005 price on a Korean Dokdo which may or may not represent the price of a Hyuga class 326 million KRW which is roughly 280 million AUD.
The prices you give for Angthong & Dokdo aren't relevant to an ASW ship. Hyūga is almost the same size as Dokdo - but 10 knots faster, much more heavily armed, & with more powerful & expensive sensors & CMS. Fitting that lot to Dokdo would greatly increase the price.

Redesign the Endurance class the way you propose & you'd probably have to pay at least three times as much. It wouldn't be the same ship, & there's no point basing it on the Endurance class.

What you're describing seems more like an Absalon class modified to give lift access to the flex deck so it can be used as a hangar. It'd also need more ASW sensors & weapons, of course.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:53 PM.