F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 03 May 2019, 20:20

AGAIN via E-Mail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFu42qGA2QU

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 May 2019, 20:58

Via E-Mail: "TRIESTE launches 25 May 2019" This photo taken between Mar-Apr 2019 some time.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 15 May 2019, 22:30

Carrier Izumo in Singapore [May 2019] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2y61oxrnoQ

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 24 May 2019, 13:51

Some Japanese think 10 F-35Bs will NOT be adequate for Fleet Defence. Oh dear what can the matter be - oh dear wot?

Japan's plan to remodel Izumo-class carriers: Needed upgrade or mere show of force? [Lot of text not here]
23 May 2019 Reiji Yoshida

"...Battle-ready or not?
Meanwhile, senior Defense Ministry officials and former MSDF officers are confused about the plan’s operational objectives. A key question is whether upgraded Izumo-class vessels can actually be deployed for practical combat operations, or if the objective is to mainly showcase the country’s military presence.

That is because typically, an effective aircraft carrier fleet requires a rotation of more than three such vessels. “Usually you would need at least three vessels; one for actual deployment, one for training and one docked for maintenance,” a senior Defense Ministry official said. Japan has no current plans to build more Izumo-class ships, which can cost as much as ¥120 billion each.

So if it has only one aircraft carrier on standby, the vessels would merely end up being ships to show off the “presence” of Japan’s naval force, the official said.

Japan would need at least four Izumo vessels if they were to be used as aircraft carriers in real naval combat operations, said Toshiyuki Ito, a retired MSDF vice admiral who is now a professor at Kanazawa Institute of Technology Toranomon Graduate School in Tokyo.

“If you only have two vessels, you can only use them for training personnel for taking off and landing operations,” Ito said. “So this plan doesn’t make sense for MSDF officers, frankly speaking.”

Ito also pointed out that MSDF officers would usually envision using an aircraft carrier of this class for fleet air defense. But a remodeled Izumo-class vessel is only capable of carrying about 10 F-35B fighters, which Ito says is too small a number to provide effective and adequate air defense for a naval fleet. [as opposed to NONE?]

Because Japan would need more Izumo-class vessels and for those ships to be able to carry more fighter jets in order to be useful in combat operations, Ito concluded that the Izumo upgrade plan is not intended for actual naval combat, but merely to “send a message to China.” “In 10 or 15 years, China will have four aircraft carriers and two of them could cruise around the Pacific Ocean right south of Japan, for example,” Ito said....

...And is Japan getting enough bang for its buck by upgrading the Izumo class? The cost not only includes the upgrading fees for the ships; it also involves procurement fees for the F-35Bs, as well as training dozens of ASDF fighter pilots to be able to fly the state-of-the-art stealth fighters.

In December, the government decided to procure 147 F-35 stealth fighters, 42 of which are now expected to be F-35Bs capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings. The remaining 105 will be land-based F-35A jet fighters for the ASDF. Each F-35A fighter costs more than ¥10 billion, and the procurement plan for F-35As and F-35Bs is likely to exceed ¥1 trillion.

The MSDF has been suffering from a chronic personnel shortage due to its tough working conditions and long periods of deployment, Ito said...."

Source: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/ ... OfkYeR7lm8

Visiting Izumo, MSDF helicopter carrier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eilBmg6xkG4

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 25 May 2019, 02:44

Absurd the Izumo Class can easily operate more than 10 F-35B's. :doh:

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 25 May 2019, 18:55

Launch of LHD 'Trieste' for the Italian Navy by Fincantieri https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEATacuOjqk

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 28 May 2019, 01:30

Via E-mail I'm told THE HOLE is for a DROP IN SKI JUMP to be installed by 2022 when TRIESTE commissioned (or earlier).

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 28 May 2019, 03:46

Vice admiral Girardelli confirmed the ski jump at the launch ceremony. What I am told is that the ski jump may be modular i.e. can be removed if not operating fixed wing. With a hanger size of 107m x 21m, maybe 12 Bs max below deck. 2 x 40 ton elevator.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 28 May 2019, 23:13

E-mail correspondent is wary of the 'removable ski jump'. Once in it is IN. However I guess IF removed a big plate could cover the hole however the crane/logistics required may make that process a tad unwieldy for the 'never do' in practice.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 29 May 2019, 00:45

Cover the hole after removal, not exactly a big issue. The issue is the removal/installation will need a crane i.e. dock works. Won't exactly be plug and play.... on 2nd thoughts, maybe big rectangle plug and play.

gabriele · by **gabriele** » 29 May 2019, 09:55

I don't think the hole has anything specific to do with the ski jump. Certainly didn't take a "foundation" for the QE class' one, i don't see why you'd need one on Trieste. I'm rather thinking they aren't done installing big stuff beneath and needed an access point still open.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 29 May 2019, 10:09

Is it possible the hole was left open. In order to install additional equipment.

This would hardly be surprising. As considerable "fitting out" takes place even after a ship is hits the water.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 29 May 2019, 11:17

So the SKI JUMP HOLE was left open for subsequent fitting out convenience whilst a SKI JUMP is installed later? Win WIN.

optimist · by **optimist** » 29 May 2019, 13:57

spazsinbad wrote:E-mail correspondent is wary of the 'removable ski jump'. Once in it is IN. However I guess IF removed a big plate could cover the hole however the crane/logistics required may make that process a tad unwieldy for the 'never do' in practice.

My guess is the jump is going on.
It was said at the time in AU, that it would be too dear to take the ski jump off the plan before it was built. The ship would have needed retesting of the design for seakeeping etc. It would have given another landing pad, but that would have also needed a redesign of a lot of stuff including fire fighting equipment. In the end it was too hard and we got the jump. If it had one without the jump, we would have bought that.

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 29 May 2019, 18:34

If the ski jump were to fit in the "hole" per Spaz' last attached illustration:

Then they would seem to be leaving 100' or so of deck space ahead of the hole unused. For what? A 5" gun mount later on? To hide a helo from the Captain on the bridge? Leaving a hole for below deck access for continued fitting out makes some sense... but they have two elevators as well, don't they? They're not small.