Forum: General F-35 Forum

spazsinbad wrote:

'slowman2' just repeating your claims without further evidence to do so does not make these claims correct. Thanks.

The difference is that I actually read Japanese sites, understand the structure and missions of each one of four JMSDF fleets, what DDHs do in each fleet, etc.

There is no room to support F-35Bs in these DDHs, which got their hands full with supporting ASW operations. You do know that you need a maintenance depot, a hanger, weapons and fuel store to support F-35Bs onboard, which take lots of space, right?

F-16.net Sponsor

Well that is convenient then. However I can only take your word for your claims. I have provided 'journalist claims' that suggest it is possible that one day the F-35Bs may be on the 22DDHs. Surely there must be English translations of the Japanese claims somewhere. We hear the same argument about LHDs for Australia which have credibility; however the 22DDH is under construction and things may change to accommodate the F-35B when necessary in a possible future. Yes the aircraft can change onboard and as suggested Japan may decide to be more truthful (rather than deceptive) about such matters. What I don't dispute is what is known about the 22DDHs in English from credible sources. If you provide specific English sources for your claims I can go read them. OK? Thanks.

F-35B's on Japanese helicopter carriers is a notion seemingly perpetuated by Japanese enthusiast publications aka fanboys - not the government or the military. If anybody can provide any official source, please do.

I did not know that DefPro is a fanboy site (of what pray tell) but I'm always willing to learn. See previous page extract from this URL:

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/597/

Last edited by hb_pencil on Feb 20, 2012 - 02:59 AM; edited 1 time in total

While there are no official plans to buy the F-35B (or even the the initial steps to start such a program)... there are alot of signs on the margins in Japan that it could move toward such a capability in a decade's time.

The problem is that Japan doesn't have an amphibious warfare doctrine and a very immature strategic discussion for its need.... though it possesses one of the world's largest collection of such vessels (three Osumis, nearly a dozen smaller vessels.) I think the critical part is political direction. Right now the defense policy debate in Japan is unsettled, particularly on the issue of out of area operations. Once more clarity is achieved (and possibly a constitutional amendment is reached) for peacekeeping/disaster relief, then you might see a more cohesive policy emerge on Amphibious warfare. And the Navy is aware of that and seems to be planning for that accordingly. Furthermore the development of Chinese anti-access capability may well spur the MSDF to obtain more fleet defense capabilities, and the F-35 could play an important part. Its just really uncertain right now.

As for the 22DDH, the MSDF has put some thought into its amphib role. You don't make specifications to potentially carry 400 troops and 25+ trucks if you're only going to undertake anti-sub ops. Certainly it would need alot of reworking to utilize the F-35B, however I don't think its going to be much more than what the US navy faces with some of their own Amphibs.

Again this ALL is dependent on what happens in the political arena... but I wouldn't say that there is no thought going towards the F-35B. Its just that its far to premature for such discussions to occur.

spazsinbad wrote:

We hear the same argument about LHDs for Australia which have credibility; however the 22DDH is under construction and things may change to accommodate the F-35B when necessary in a possible future.

The problem with your understanding is that you do not understand that there is a follow-up to 22DDH called 24DDH, which shows up on MoD documents but no description or conceptual rendering is given, with lots of speculations about this class of ships.

Unlike 22DDH which clearly is an ASW operations helicopter carrier that replace existing DDHs, 24DDH replaces no existing old JMSDF ship; it is a new kind of ship doing a new role. So what is it then? One thing we know is that it approaches 290 m in length. At 290 m, why is it so long?

I give in. Why?

Some questions for perspective on this discussion.
Regarding the sea support needs for an F-35B, what would the expected patrol range be for this vessel?
I'm not asking how far it can actually go, I mean what kind of patrols do these craft normally participate in?
Perhaps a more direct question is, what is the actual range of Japans maritime interests?
I would say that based on the fact that Japan's fleet need not travel far to protect their sea space, they would need comparatively less space than say a US vessal of a similar breed since their home islands are never too far away.

slowman2 wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:

'slowman2' just repeating your claims without further evidence to do so does not make these claims correct. Thanks.

The difference is that I actually read Japanese sites, understand the structure and missions of each one of four JMSDF fleets, what DDHs do in each fleet, etc.

There is no room to support F-35Bs in these DDHs, which got their hands full with supporting ASW operations. You do know that you need a maintenance depot, a hanger, weapons and fuel store to support F-35Bs onboard, which take lots of space, right?

What something is designed to do and what something can do are two different things. Invincible was laid down as replacement for the Tiger-class anti-submarine cruiser with a secondary anti-air role. It gained a STOVL aircraft requirement two years into construction. As it turns out, the facilities for supporting medium and heavy helicopters are remarkably similar to those needed for STOVL aircraft.

archeman wrote:

Some questions for perspective on this discussion.
Regarding the sea support needs for an F-35B, what would the expected patrol range be for this vessel?

As far as reaching Somalia, stay there for three months, and then sail home for destroyers. Deployed destroyers will be resupplied.

Everything else is supposed to be able to sail to Hawaii, do some joint naval exercise for two weeks, then sail back home. So that's a minimum endurance of two months at sea.

I would say that for the anti-pirate cooperative mission, you could probably leave the F-35B at home, the large helos and long range unmanned platforms are probably more valuable for that mission. So that leaves Hawaii excercises?

As 'bjr1028' points out - it is amazing what happens between 'now and then'. Another example of how requirements change would be HMAS Melbourne (aircraft carrier). Laid down at end of WWII as a 'light fleet carrier'. Construction halted at end of war. Onsold to Australia a few years later but the new jet age with angle decks and mirrors and steam catapults caused modification of MELBOURNE (unlike HMAS Sydney which remained an axial deck carrier suitable only for prop aircraft) to be the first with angle deck, etc. However construction strength was WWII style 'cheap and cheerful' - not meant to last. Early Sea Venoms and Gannets were fine but new A4G Skyhawks and S2E Trackers required strengthened flight deck, carried out in a major refit. After first cruise the deck was strengthened some more. Finally by the end of RAN FAA Fixed Wing flying onboard in 1982 MELBOURNE was worn out and sold to China for scrap. Plans are good and plans change.

Should also point out that in the mid 1960s the plan was to have MELBOURNE only as an ASW Helo Carrier with fixed wing defunct (Venom/Gannet gone). Oops. Plans changed to the A4G/S2E era etc.

Slowman:

The 22DDH's propulsion provides 35% more power than the 16DDH's (135k hp vs 100k hp).

Quote:

The propulsion system comprises four GE LM2500 gas turbines of 33,600 hp (25 MW) each giving a total power of around 135,000 hp (100 MW) in a COGAG arrangement giving a speed of 30 kt.

http://articles.maritimepropulsion.com/?tag=/22DDH

While they may be the same family of engines (GE LM2500 series), the current version puts out a lot more power than what was installed on the 16DDH carriers.

Quote:

The 13,500-ton DDH destroyer will use two propulsion trains, each consisting of two LM2500s in a COmbined Gas turbine And Gas turbine configuration (COGAG), driving a propeller through a gearbox. The engines will each provide 25,000 shaft horsepower.

http://www.geaviation.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/marine/marine_20050504.html

Here is the current GE LM2500 specsheet:

SpudmanWP

22DDH has 12% more power than 16DDH, which isn't enough to overcome the 35% displacement increase and the top speed dropped by 3 knots accordingly.

spazsinbad wrote:

As 'bjr1028' points out - it is amazing what happens between 'now and then'.

This isn't a war time and such improvised changes aren't required.

Japan will have a carrier some time in the future; but it will be a STOBAR/CATOBAR type carrier, not a VSTOL type carrier.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC