Aircraft Carriers III

Obi Wan Russell said:

... so it could happily ride the elevators of an Essex after modernisation (SCB-27A/C SCB-125).

Click to expand...

OK. We are looking for the reason why it was not done. Or proof that it was done after all.

It may be that it was not made for comfort, because the plane was too bulky ... and it was not necessary, anyway in the hangar was little space (for 40% of the air wing).

When I was aboard ships the A-3s were usually shore based in Rota, Cubi Pt or Guam. Now aboard JFK they were aboard most of the deployment. Three of those big monsters.

Obi Wan Russell said:

Equipment was omitted from the RAN ships, but installing it would not require any major structural alterations. The bulk heads are all the same, the usage of those compartments is different.

Click to expand...

The detail I picked up an age ago was the changes were far more substantial, including the size of the magazine, fuelling systems and a whole host of other things. The opinion of the person who wrote it (Australian service member and involved in Australian defence procurement) was that the ship would need to be gutted and practically razed to the waterline to get to the areas concerned and add the capability back in. The costs involved (and time) would be so significant that purchasing a new Spanish standard Juan Carlos would actually be only marginally more expensive.

Obi Wan Russell said:

I agree they aren't ideal for operating Lightnings despite being designed for the job. My main opposition to them would be they have far too small a flight deck for their size. For a 27,000tonne ship they offer hardly any more deck space than the 12,000tonne Thai carrier Chakri Narubet, The Spanish designers can hardly claim they weren't intended to be carriers because they absolutely were! It was an integral part of the design brief and they could have done a much better job

Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed. For me the Juan Carlos Class took a lot of the lessons from the CVS, Principe de Asturias and Garibaldi and ignored them. Undoubtedly budget came into it, and I've no doubt that the Juan Carlos is reasonable value for money. But if it was me procuring a vessel of a similar size it wouldn't have been the Juan Carlos I'd have procured it would have been the Cavour.

Intrepid said:

OK. We are looking for the reason why it was not done. Or proof that it was done after all.

It may be that it was not made for comfort, because the plane was too bulky ... and it was not necessary, anyway in the hangar was little space (for 40% of the air wing).

Click to expand...

I've read a few reports from Essex class Captains who basically didn't want A3's on their ships, as they took up so much deck space they made operating other normal sized aircraft difficult. They were a nuisance really. Here's a shot of CV-19, USS Hancock with A-3s parked abaft the island, compare their size with that of the other aircraft aboard:

this is an interesting sentence:

Timmymagic said:

For me the Juan Carlos Class took a lot of the lessons from the CVS, Principe de Asturias and Garibaldi and ignored them.

Click to expand...

would you please elaborate

Obi Wan Russell said:

The lift question has already been asked and answered; you just park the aircraft diagonally.

The heat problem is just a matter of coating the deck with Thermion, no rebuilding required. The RAN ships already have a ski jump,, one which WAS specifically designed for the F-35B. There are NO engineering barriers to the Izumo class or the Adelaides operating Lightnings, only political ones.

Click to expand...

sounds like you might have a great setup here:

either Japan gets F-35Bs and operates them off of helicopter destroyers (LOL), meaning I was wrong Feb 27, 2018, of course,

or it'd politics for Japan not to get F-35Bs and not to put them to see?? LOL loose-loose situation for me??

so let me ask you this:

what would happen if I came here ten years from now, and Japan by then still didn't have F-35Bs at sea

Some more stuff to read about hangars and elevators and the size of aircraft:


(with a short hint that Skywarriors had to be moved to and from the hangar on the deck edge elevators)
(Essex class carriers carried three A3D-2s, nine to eleven A3D-2s were embarked on the Midway class and full twelve-aircraft squadrons were sent aboard the Forrestal class decks ...)
(The maximum folded span (for all but the A3D Skywarrior) was 27' 6" ...)

Jura said:

sounds like you might have a great setup here:

either Japan gets F-35Bs and operates them off of helicopter destroyers (LOL), meaning I was wrong Feb 27, 2018, of course,

or it'd politics for Japan not to get F-35Bs and not to put them to see?? LOL loose-loose situation for me??

so let me ask you this:

what would happen if I came here ten years from now, and Japan by then still didn't have F-35Bs at sea

Click to expand...

Then that would be the choice of the Japanese Government, as a Sovereign Nation that is their right to choose. What we are debating here is possibilities and probabilities, the former being an engineering issue and the latter being Geopolitical. From an engineering point of view many of us have speculated (and the Japanese Government have confirmed) that the Izumo class are capable of operating F-35Bs. They absolutely ARE. That is no longer in doubt.

The Izumos are 27,000 tonne flat topped ships with full length flight decks, starboard islands, a deck edge and a centre line lift accessing a below decks hangar. That is a Carrier! NOT a Destroyer! Or is HMS Hermes/INS Viraat a Destroyer? That ship has, let's see, full length flight deck, starboard island, a deck edge and a centre line lift accessing a below decks hangar. And she's about 27,000 tonnes. Name a Destroyer with those characteristics.

Obi Wan Russell said:

Then that would be the choice of the Japanese Government, as a Sovereign Nation that is their right to choose. What we are debating here is possibilities and probabilities, the former being an engineering issue and the latter being Geopolitical. From an engineering point of view many of us have speculated (and the Japanese Government have confirmed) that the Izumo class are capable of operating F-35Bs. They absolutely ARE. That is no longer in doubt.

...

Click to expand...

oh so even if ten years from now it didn't happen what you talk here

(and I assume you talk Japanese F-35Bs being a part of the Izumos/Huygas air wing),

it wouldn't mean you're daydreaming today?

Jura said:

oh so even if ten years from now it didn't happen what you talk here

(and I assume you talk Japanese F-35Bs being a part of the Izumos/Huygas air wing),

it wouldn't mean you're daydreaming today?

Click to expand...

No it would not.

10+ years ago many were stating as confidently as you do here that the QECs would never be built and people like me were daydreaming about that too. I remember predicting as far back as the 80s that the Clemenceaus would end up in South America. I'll admit I was only 50% right, but nobody expected Argentina to decide to unilaterally disarm.

And yes I was referring to Japanese F-35Bs, something the Japanese Government has admitted to investigating the possibilities of, on top of their purchase of F-35As.