We are in agreement then. The 22DDH is unlikely to be ordered soon, but will probably be ordered in the next few years when circumstances are more favourable...
Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Well now we seem to all be in agreement..
Regarding the Hyuga's ..What do you fellow think the true helo capacity is of that ship.
It is some what larger than an old USN Iwo Jima class which held 24 helos and 2,100 marines(including air wing) in addition to a ships complement of 667.
Now.. The DDH 181 has much more luxurious accommodations than an Iwo Jima LPH-2. The Hyuga has 6 man state rooms for lower enlisted as an example therefore she cannot handle as many personnel as an LPH-2 class. As far as the true number of personnel she can carry I have no clue. But she can easily handle 20 helos. Time of course will tell what the ship is truely capable of.
Jeff, I noticed on your Hyuga page that you list the speed as 30+ knots. What do you base that on? That seems a little high to me. I'm thinking along the lines of 20-25 knots..maximum.
Regarding the Hyuga's ..What do you fellow think the true helo capacity is of that ship.
It is some what larger than an old USN Iwo Jima class which held 24 helos and 2,100 marines(including air wing) in addition to a ships complement of 667.
Now.. The DDH 181 has much more luxurious accommodations than an Iwo Jima LPH-2. The Hyuga has 6 man state rooms for lower enlisted as an example therefore she cannot handle as many personnel as an LPH-2 class. As far as the true number of personnel she can carry I have no clue. But she can easily handle 20 helos. Time of course will tell what the ship is truely capable of.
Jeff, I noticed on your Hyuga page that you list the speed as 30+ knots. What do you base that on? That seems a little high to me. I'm thinking along the lines of 20-25 knots..maximum.
Last edited:
Having had a few hours to ponder this question (I like a ponder, it's very refreshing and leaves you feeling perky and... no wait that's something else!
), I would estimate the Hyuga's aircraft capacity as being on a par with the Italian Garibaldi at the very least. The Italian ship is smaller, but as Popeye has pointed out the Japanese have a more luxurious standard of accomodation aboard their warships and this woud probably go some way to consuming the size differential. So, in the pure ASW helo carrier role, I would reckon on a max air wing of 18-20 helos (S-70s), some on deck, some in the hangar and the rest in the air at any given time. Start adding STOVL aircraft like Harriers or Lightnings, and the overall numbers would go down a little, mainly because they don't have folding wings and take up more space, so a mixed bag of 8 fighters and 8 helos give or take as circumstances require.
), I would estimate the Hyuga's aircraft capacity as being on a par with the Italian Garibaldi at the very least. The Italian ship is smaller, but as Popeye has pointed out the Japanese have a more luxurious standard of accomodation aboard their warships and this woud probably go some way to consuming the size differential. So, in the pure ASW helo carrier role, I would reckon on a max air wing of 18-20 helos (S-70s), some on deck, some in the hangar and the rest in the air at any given time. Start adding STOVL aircraft like Harriers or Lightnings, and the overall numbers would go down a little, mainly because they don't have folding wings and take up more space, so a mixed bag of 8 fighters and 8 helos give or take as circumstances require.
Last edited:
As Jeff has pointed out some time ago it would take just slight modifications to add a ski jump to the DDH16 ships there by giving it the ability to launch Sea Harriers or the F-35B. But at this moment I'm sure the JMSDF is going to bide it's time until perhaps a more "favorable" government is elected.
4 COGAG gas turbines operating two shafts and delivering a total of 100,000 hp (4 X 25,000 hp).
For the given displacement and hull form this should translate into that capability.
In addition, the lists it at 30 knots as does Global Security and Naval-Technology.
I addition, we would need to know that the deck had been designed to handle the jet blast for the vertical landing and the short take-off of the JSF. I would be surprised if it hadn't...but that is an important considertion.Having had a few hours to ponder this question (I like a ponder, it's very refreshing and leaves you feeling perky and... no wait that's something else!
If the downward exhaust of the F-35B does prove to be a problem for the flight deck, then re engineering the whole deck is not necessary. In the RN, Harriers are recovered on the same spot on deck close to amidships, where movement of the deck is at a minimum. The DAPS (Deck Approach Projector Sight) guides aircraft to this spot for this reason, so a reinforced (water cooled?) landing area amidships would be a solution, and would not be as expensive as refitting the whole deck of course. But then this question basically hinges on just how hot the air is coming out of the rear jet pipe on a Lightning. When the Harrier first entered service. many predicted similar problems, but in fact the Harrier was able to operate from a WW2 vintage wooden flight deck without any special measures being needed. The Lightning's engine is far more powerful than the Harrier's of course, but I expect many of the dire predictions are based on the erroneous assumption that the aircraft hovers with it's afterburner on. We shall see...
Ambivalent
Junior Member
Care to tell us which WWII vintage wooden flight deck you are referring too? None of the RN's carriers had wooden flight decks. Certainly HMS Hermes did not.
In case you are interested, even the exhausts of the V-22 are giving our flight decks some problems, requiring a special portable shield at their landing spots.
Thermal issues with the F-35B are yet to be determined.
- Status