Aircraft Carriers III

TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
@Jeff Head @SamuraiBlue @bd popeye @Obi Wan Russell @Jura (Yes it is just a conceptual offering)
Apparently at DSEI Japan this was pitched by General Atomics. @XavNN can you confirm?
I would post this in the art page but it’s actually from General Atomics who makes the EMALS. GA was making the pitch for it?
DF1EFFA9-0C7A-4B0F-9048-34489AA5B05E.jpeg
Clearly we have the DD83 however EMALS added about amid ships. That forward most parking space has me worried in this one. looks like a accident is about to happen at the cost of 3 F35C.
The Japanese already have V22, E2C and SeaHawks so the air arm projected is practical save for the F35C which if this happened would make Japan the only other operator than the USN.
 
Obi Wan Russell

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
TerraN_EmpirE said:
@Jeff Head @SamuraiBlue @bd popeye @Obi Wan Russell @Jura (Yes it is just a conceptual offering)
Apparently at DSEI Japan this was pitched by General Atomics. @XavNN can you confirm?
I would post this in the art page but it’s actually from General Atomics who makes the EMALS. GA was making the pitch for it?
View attachment 55324
Clearly we have the DD83 however EMALS added about amid ships. That forward most parking space has me worried in this one. looks like a accident is about to happen at the cost of 3 F35C.
The Japanese already have V22, E2C and SeaHawks so the air arm projected is practical save for the F35C which if this happened would make Japan the only other operator than the USN.
Click to expand...
The layout is far from optimal. Not least because the Japanese are buying F-35Bs not Cs, which require far less modification to the ship (ski jump and thermion coating, which is just painted on). Putting both cats forward on anything less than a full sized CVN was abandoned back in the 60s, when the layout usually altered to one forward to port and the second in the waist on the angled deck (Eagle, Ark Royal, The Clemenceaus, Charles de Gaulle). This means the starboard side of fly one can become a permanent deck park, the third element of carrier operations after launch and recovery is spotting the aircraft on deck and in the hangar. Often neglected and even forgotten in fanboy fictional carriers (witness the 'reverse angle' carrier based on the 70s SCS, utterly impractical). If General Atomics are seriously touting a layout like this, then it is easy to understand why they have had problems with EMALS aboard the Ford class. They are apparently somewhat lacking in understanding of how carriers work, though one hopes they've learned a lot more since.

If the Japanese were serious about going CTOL with the F-35C, then they'd be better off starting with a newer larger design. At 27000tonnes the Izumos are just too small and cramped for CTOL operations, enlarge the design to at least 40-50000tonnes as a starting point and it will all work better. Nobody ever built a conventional carrier and thought, "this will work so much better with LESS space to move around".

Even so, if we think about the layout of a CTOL Izumo, this is where I'd be thinking :
22ddh-05b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
TerraN_EmpirE said:
@Jeff Head @SamuraiBlue @bd popeye @Obi Wan Russell @Jura (Yes it is just a conceptual offering)
Apparently at DSEI Japan this was pitched by General Atomics. @XavNN can you confirm?
I would post this in the art page but it’s actually from General Atomics who makes the EMALS. GA was making the pitch for it?
View attachment 55324
Clearly we have the DD83 however EMALS added about amid ships. That forward most parking space has me worried in this one. looks like a accident is about to happen at the cost of 3 F35C.
The Japanese already have V22, E2C and SeaHawks so the air arm projected is practical save for the F35C which if this happened would make Japan the only other operator than the USN.
Click to expand...
for billions they botched the USN carrier (which the Pentagon cleverly accepted and commissioned to be able to talk about game-changer) and now would botch a Japanese carrier (if there were such thing -- you know there isn't) if paid some more

of course salespersons don't have the word "shame" in their vocabulary, LOL
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
asif iqbal said:
with F35B coming online is a angled deck even required?
Click to expand...
It can help. It all depends on operations the British hav been pushing a rolling landing scheme that allows aircraft like V22 or F35B to land with heavier payloads than the vertical method. However on a short deck carrier that could eat into take off space. Having the angled deck could allow more space for rolling landings and even rolling take offs.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
TerraN_EmpirE said:
It can help. It all depends on operations the British hav been pushing a rolling landing scheme that allows aircraft like V22 or F35B to land with heavier payloads than the vertical method. However on a short deck carrier that could eat into take off space. Having the angled deck could allow more space for rolling landings and even rolling take offs.
Click to expand...

I am afraid the Izumo doesn't have enough deck length to conduct SRVL as being practiced by the British. I shared this conclusion in the Japan thread a few weeks ago. https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/japan-military-news-reports-data-etc.t2436/page-349#post-572663

Extensive study was conducted by BAE systems during the design of the QE and certain guidelines is worthwhile repeating here. Generally, you need to add at least 10,000 tonnes between a CATOBAR and a STOVL design. Increasing tonnage from 40,000 to 50,000 tons increase costs 10%, but aviation capability by 50%. In summary if you are going to build a CATOBAR carrier you need to be looking at least at 50,000 tons or else you are just wasting time and money.

I would seriously question the strategic and tactical rationale to incorporate CAT onto the Izumo. The underlying basis of converting it to a STOL carrier was to extend Japan;s perimeter defense around the ECS. The carrier is intended to provide defensive mission sets - not offence. As such, it is expected to operate sufficiently near to Japan's land based assets that can provide ancillary support eg. AWAC's. While the F-35C may have slightly longer range, on the scheme of things it is highly infeasible given Izumo's present configuration.

I agree Japan needs a much longer legged fighter plane and that would be the F-3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top