F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

[steve2267]

I'm fairly sure that an Italian Admiral has been quoted by SLDinfo regarding the minimal changes to CAVOUR for F-35B ops.

Don't know why I didn't notice this before... I thought Cavour was around 15-20,000 tons. Then I see she is 30,000 ton -- larger than Canberra / Adelaide / Juan Carlos I. I did notice Cavour supposedly carries four smaller landing craft -- certainly much smaller than Canberra et al. But in the photo on the Wikipedia page, it was not clear at all where Cavour discharges the landing craft. There does not appear to be a stern well deck, although a rather larger door, aft starboard side, appears to be able to discharge vehicles (e.g. onto a pier). Fast too -- 29kts.

In the FWIW category, IMO, for a nation that desires a true, blue water carrier, something on the order of the Midway-class or Charles de Gaulle-class, around 45,000 ton and able to carry 40-50 aircraft and helos would seem to be the ticket. I suppose a purpose-built CV lite (CVL) could be had in the 30,000 ton range. Though certainly the Brits did very well with the Invincible-class at 22,000 tons. I'm thinking along the lines of 2 dozen fixed wing aircraft for strike, escort, air defense, one dozen for ASW, then another six to a dozen for COD, ASR. I forgot tankers. Maybe nine for ASW, nine tankers, and six for COD / ASR. But I'm just kind of pulling numbers out of thin air as a SWAG.

I really liked the S-3 in the ASW role; thought that fit very well. In my fairyverse, re-work the S-3 / make it bigger (or have a larger version) for tanker / COD. Maybe you have three versions of the S-3: ASW, tanker, and COD that would share engines, avionics, and many similar if not identical structural pieces. But the S-3 means CATOBAR. Doable on a Midway/CDG class boat. But it is also not stealthy. <sigh> Maybe bring back the X-47B, make it bigger for tanking, and also use it for ISR (strike too?) and ASW. S-3 for COD and recovery tanker.

So here's my mythical CVL / CV (2 CAT) airwing:

24 x F-35B
12 x KSA-47X
3 x UH-60R
3-6 S-3X

For a 25-30,000 CVL (STOVL only)

18 x F-35B
9-12 x V-22B (ASW / Tanker / COD / ASR)

[spazsinbad]

The 'stevie ever wishful' said above:

"...certainly the Brits did very well with the Invincible-class at 22,000 tons..."

NOT IF YOU ASK THEM. The Invincible Class was made for Atlantic ASW Helo Ops. It was modified with ski jump to enable Hairier Ops. These were always a tight fit and problematic on such a small deck. Typical RN FAA grit made it all work.

[glendora]

I did notice Cavour supposedly carries four smaller landing craft -- certainly much smaller than Canberra et al. But in the photo on the Wikipedia page, it was not clear at all where Cavour discharges the landing craft.

You are confusing the Cavour, currently in service, with the future Italian LHD currently under construction, the Thaon di Revel, which will feature a well dock capable of accommodate 4 landing crafts.
It’s not known at the moment whether the future Italian LHD, which is due to take over the Garibaldi, would operate the F-35-B.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LgoWgXet8s

[steve2267]

You are confusing the Cavour, currently in service, with the future Italian LHD currently under construction, the Thaon di Revel, which will feature a well dock capable of accommodate 4 landing crafts.
It’s not known at the moment whether the future Italian LHD, which is due to take over the Garibaldi, would operate the F-35-B.

Thanks for correcting my confusions.

Does this mean, then, that the Italians consider the Cavour more of an aircraft carrier than, say, a Landing Ship Helicopter (LHA)? Because she does have the capability to transport vehicles, including tanks, correct?

[spazsinbad]

Great Video 'glendora' - thanks for such a good explanation of details for the new Italian F-35B/helo/stuff carrier.

[blindpilot]

'BP' said:

"...2. Ship infrastructure layout for mission effectiveness. (fuel storage weapon handling, maintenance facility etc.) That is a big deal! The Aussie ships are not "essentially Juan Carlos designs." There were several structural changes made for the LHD focus. Those would have to be designed back out, "Undoing" a structural layout is more expensive than building it in. There is a significant cost here, despite the "It's already Juan Carlos" protestations. Doable? Sure. Cheap? No...."

Got a link to source of this information please? This type of claim -unsupported- is really annoying when several credible people have made claims exactly the opposite (and of course these claims are elsewhere on this forum). ..

I'll try and get some historical references I recall from the building timeframe. Until then the following:

The construction of the hull to the level of the flight deck and the majority of fit-out is being undertaken at Navantia’s shipyard in Ferrol, Spain. The hull was then transported by Heavy Lift Ship MV Blue Marlin to BAE Systems’s shipyard in Williamstown, Victoria for final construction and fit-out such as the consolidation of the superstructure and installation of the Combat and Communication Systems.

from http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-canberra-iii
points out that some below deck fit-out (the question is, what does "the majority of" mean) and the entire superstructure and C&C installation was HMAS specific. I'll have to dig back into 2012/13 stories. Honestly I trust your reference files more than my memory. But I do remember significant division of tasks construction done in Australia at the time. (the installation of Canberra's island superstructure and the internal fit-out of the hull was completed by BAE Systems Australia at Williamstown https://navaltoday.com/2013/05/01/austr ... -canberra/ )

Ship delivered 2012 -

Ship as delivered from Spain

Ship delivered from Spain.jpg (11.12 KiB) Viewed 62634 times

I'll google/dig through some 2013 stuff.

MHO,
BP

[spazsinbad]

These 'wot is the Canberra Class built too standard' issues have been discussed on this forum with quotes hither and yon. I trust people with experience of CVS ops who have toured / been given information about our LHDs who say any changes internally are minimal. The quotes can be dug out agin -only if requested- because to me it is just the same old same old.

[glendora]

Does this mean, then, that the Italians consider the Cavour more of an aircraft carrier than, say, a Landing Ship Helicopter (LHA)? Because she does have the capability to transport vehicles, including tanks, correct?

While the Cavour is capable of heliassault, basically you are correct. The Cavour does not have any well dock and has only capabilities to transport heavy land vehicles, by the rear ramp.
[img]
http://www.primadanoi.it/resizer/750/-1 ... .jpg--.jpg[/img]

Cavour is a pocket aircraft carrier, quite ready and built for the F-35B; while the next LHD will be more of an assault ship.

[spazsinbad]

Without the ENTER/carriage return effect the link appears: http://www.primadanoi.it/resizer/750/-1 ... .jpg--.jpg

&/OR EMBED attached here below....

[neptune]

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201802230054.html

MSDF helicopter flattop Izumo designed as aircraft carrier

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
February 23, 2018

Despite the Defense Ministry's denial that the helicopter carrier Izumo, launched in 2015, was planned to be refitted into an aircraft carrier, former Maritime Self-Defense Force executives confirmed that that is how the blueprints were drawn up. “It is only reasonable to design (the Izumo) with the prospect of possible changes of the circumstances in the decades ahead,” a then MSDF executive told The Asahi Shimbun. “We viewed that whether the Izumo should be actually refitted could be decided by the government.” The former executive said a consensus was reached privately among the MSDF that the Izumo should be considered for conversion into an aircraft carrier. But the MSDF couldn't explain the need publicly due to the government's view that aircraft carriers capable of launching large-scale attacks are equivalent to the military capability prohibited by the war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution. Ever since the Izumo's construction, experts both in and outside Japan have pointed out the possibility of turning it into a full-fledged aircraft carrier. However, the Defense Ministry publicly denied any plan to deploy fighter jets with strike capabilities on the Izumo and contended that it was not an aircraft carrier.

The ministry has since done an abrupt about-face and now is mulling the possibility of refitting the vessel into an aircraft carrier. Such a reversal has inevitably raised suspicions that the ministry had this plan in mind from the beginning. Refitting the Izumo, the Maritime Self-Defense Force's largest vessel, into an aircraft carrier had been considered since late 2000 to bolster the nation's defenses against China’s increasing maritime advances around Japan’s southwestern islands, according to the MSDF executives. Equipped with a flat deck from bow to stern, helicopters can land on and take off off from the five spots of the flight deck at a time. The Izumo's basic design was formulated from 2006 through 2008.

In 2008, Chinese naval vessels and other warships passing through the waters between the main Okinawa island and Miyakojima island, which lies to the southwest, were spotted for the first time. At that time Chinese government vessels intruding on Japan’s territorial waters became common. According to MSDF executives at that time, the MSDF saw the need to secure Japan’s competitive edge in the airspace to counter possible China’s maritime expansion in the East China Sea.
- However, the runway at the Air Self-Defense Force Naha Base is the only one that allows ASDF aircraft to take off and land in and around Okinawa. Therefore “the plan to construct the Izumo was settled with its future conversion in mind to prepare for any possible contingency of the unavailability of the ASDF Naha Base,” according to one of the executives.
- In those days, the U.S. F-35B stealth fighters, which could take off and land vertically, were in development, leading to a design conception of the Izumo on the premise that it could be converted to handle landings and takeoffs of the F-35B and other aircraft, such as the Osprey transport aircraft.
- The approximately 250-meter long Izumo’s elevator connecting the deck with the hangar was designed to accommodate the F-35B fighter, which measures about 15 meters in length and about 11 meters in width.
- Paint that can withstand the exhaust heat generated from F-35 fighter jets during landings and takeoffs was selected for the deck of the Izumo.
- It has also been expected to retrofit the Izumo with a sloping deck for takeoffs (ski-jump), the former MSDF executives said.

If the Izumo is converted to enable landings and takeoffs of the F-35B, the vessel can be utilized to refuel U.S. stealth fighter jets anywhere in the world at any time, including during military emergencies under the new national security legislation. Even if it is designated a “defensive” aircraft carrier or with some other terminology, the refitted Izumo would be a vessel capable of attacking enemy targets.


....one might contend that "war" requires aggression (China, Korea, Phillipines, Hawaii, etc.) and an Isumo operated in Japanese waters to defend the Japanese islands is more defensive than aggressive.

[spazsinbad]

Japan ponders use of helicopter carrier for stealth fighters
03 Mar 2018 RYO AIBARA

"Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera dropped a bombshell admission March 2 by saying he authorized studies into whether advanced F-35B stealth fighter jets can be deployed on the Maritime Self-Defense Force's Izumo helicopter carrier....

...Aware of the political ramifications of his comment in the Upper House Budget Committee session, Onodera added, "No decision has yet been made about whether the F-35B will actually be attached to the Izumo."...

...In the Upper House Budget Committee session, Onodera said, "Regarding the Izumo, research has been conducted on which among the latest aircraft could possibly take off and land on it. The most representative aircraft is the F-35B. (The research) is intended to accumulate fundamental information regardless of the conclusion reached in the future."

But he stopped short of stating whether the Constitution banned the possession of any aircraft carrier. He would only say "attack" aircraft carriers that had many aircraft capable of loads with extreme destructive power or anti-land attack capabilities would not be allowed."

Source: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201803030015.html

[spazsinbad]

[spazsinbad]

Via E-mail a Japanese DDH Ski Jump model.

[spazsinbad]

LDP to propose introducing F-35B fighters [VIDEO AT URL says all this and more]
20 Mar 2018 NHKworld

"Japan's main governing Liberal Democratic Party plans to propose introducing F-35B fighter jets and a multi-purpose aircraft carrier to be operated under the country's defense-only stance. The government is to review the National Defense Program Guidelines this year for the first time in 5 years. On Tuesday, the LDP panel on national security compiled a set of proposals to be considered....

...The panel will call for procuring a multi-purpose aircraft carrier that can also serve as a hospital ship. It will be operated solely for defense purposes. Retrofitting of the Maritime Self-Defense Force's destroyer Izumo is to be listed as an option.

The panel also wants the Defense Ministry to acquire advanced F-35B stealth planes, which can take off from short runways. Panel chair Gen Nakatani suggested Japan must become able to hit back at enemy bases.

The LDP plans to submit the proposals to the government for discussion in late May."

Source: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20180320_26/

[element1loop]

..one might contend that "war" requires aggression (China, Korea, Phillipines, Hawaii, etc.) and an Isumo operated in Japanese waters to defend the Japanese islands is more defensive than aggressive.

Given nukes of Pakis, China, Norks and Putinistan, I'm comfortable with a state like Japan having carriers.