Japanese Carrier Whoa...
-
See link for discussion on Japanese aircraft carrier plans...hmmm. http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTSURF.HTM
-
Let me post the pictures for all to see,
Osumi-class “LST” or helicopter assault ships , full load displacement is 14,700 tons. Two is completed, total four will be commissioned.
And the new JapanÂ’s DDH-X helicopter carrying destroyers or rather a small STOVL a/c carrier.Four of this13,500-ton full load displacement ships will be commissioned as plan.
With all this completed , Jap's navy will be second navy in asia to have some form of power projection. -
Found by accident a paper on the relevance of aircraft carriers to the USA......
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/98-217.pdf
I think for the rest of the world, maybe a LHD like HMS Ocean, USS Wasp, Italian Andrea Doria or (RSS Singapura) would suffice. -
Originally posted by gary1910:
It will be really interesting if RSN purchase 1 of such ship to act as both an anti-sub and assault helicopter carrier and a troop transport ship.
[b]Let me post the pictures for all to see,
Osumi-class “LST�Eor helicopter assault ships , full load displacement is 14,700 tons. Two is completed, total four will be commissioned. -
the japanese navy has a relatively long and rich maritime history. It proved to be a force to be reckoned with from the time it smashed the russian fleet in 1905 to pearl harbor and the sinking of hms prince of wales and repulse off kuantan during ww2.
After the war, it kept a pretty low profile although it's very strong and well-quipped fleet boasted of impressive home-built destroyers and submarines. So i'm not at all surprised by this new capability at all. IMO, it is asiapac's 2nd most powerful navy after the USN -
Once more my ignorance will show;
IFrom the picture of the new DDH, I noticed that the ratio of the island structure width to the mid-ship deck width is like 1:2. That leaves only a very narrow space between the port edge of the deck to the inner-face of the island doesn't it? Can any aircraft still land or take off safely under such tight and narrow conditions? Especially at night or in rough seas?
I think even the French Clemenceau and Spanish carriers have a wider deck right? -
It's a helicopter carrier which means only helicopters or VTOL (vertical take off and landing) capable aeroplanes like Harrier can land and take off from the ship. There is no runway on the ship.Originally posted by Laplace:Once more my ignorance will show;
IFrom the picture of the new DDH, I noticed that the ratio of the island structure width to the mid-ship deck width is like 1:2. That leaves only a very narrow space between the port edge of the deck to the inner-face of the island doesn't it? Can any aircraft still land or take off safely under such tight and narrow conditions? Especially at night or in rough seas?
I think even the French Clemenceau and Spanish carriers have a wider deck right? -
I heard the vertical takeoff from carriers is a waste of fuel and hence British and other European Harrier carriers have ramps at the bow of the ship to assist in takeoff right? Those are real STOVL carriers right?Originally posted by LXC:It's a helicopter carrier which means only helicopters or VTOL (vertical take off and landing) capable aeroplanes like Harrier can land and take off from the ship. There is no runway on the ship.
But I think even STOVL carriers must have a long and wide enough runway for short takeoff with or without ramps. I highly doubt from the picture of the new DDH that it has what it takes a STOVL carrier. -
Actually if you have read the report posted by the thread starter, you will know that the analyst from that report believe it could handle a few STOVL a/c like the F-35Bs.Originally posted by Laplace:I heard the vertical takeoff from carriers is a waste of fuel and hence British and other European Harrier carriers have ramps at the bow of the ship to assist in takeoff right? Those are real STOVL carriers right?
But I think even STOVL carriers must have a long and wide enough runway for short takeoff with or without ramps. I highly doubt from the picture of the new DDH that it has what it takes a STOVL carrier. -
I felt that the article wasn't objective enough and the writer has attached his bias.
So I gave my point of view based on the picture. -
If I am not wrong, it was announced that the flight deck would not be stressed to handle the weight of the F-35.
-
I don't think the new carrier that it has what it takes to be STOVL carrier since you still need a runway for that nor is the new carrier suppose to be a STOVL carrier. I just saying other than helicopters, planes like the Harrier can land and take off from the carrier. (Harrier can do it a vertical take off as long as it's not carrying a full load.) Just like we can bash our head against a wall but we are not going to do it neither will any plane land on that carrier.Originally posted by Laplace:I heard the vertical takeoff from carriers is a waste of fuel and hence British and other European Harrier carriers have ramps at the bow of the ship to assist in takeoff right? Those are real STOVL carriers right?
But I think even STOVL carriers must have a long and wide enough runway for short takeoff with or without ramps. I highly doubt from the picture of the new DDH that it has what it takes a STOVL carrier. -
Will there be any chance that Singapore get a ship similar to this in the distant future?
-
Carriers are rapidly becoming obsolent... it would behoove us to find another way of projecting firepower, like the long range, hypersonic cruise missile that can be fired from almost any platform.
-
cruise missiles?!? our dear neighbours will make so much noise. i rather haf a carrier fleet (destroyer s, subs escorts and all.)Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Carriers are rapidly becoming obsolent... it would behoove us to find another way of projecting firepower, like the long range, hypersonic cruise missile that can be fired from almost any platform.
-
there is also a thing called nuclear tipped ICBM. carriers will still be needed just to 'flex muscles'Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Carriers are rapidly becoming obsolent... it would behoove us to find another way of projecting firepower, like the long range, hypersonic cruise missile that can be fired from almost any platform. -
China recently had been aquiring old aircraft carriers for scrap or coverting to floating theme parks.
HMAS Melbourne
Kiev
Minsk
VARYAG
This carrier is now guarded under high security by PLAN
NAeL Minas Gerais
-
China is not scrapping them... they are buying them to learn how to build aircraft carriers - reverse engineering.... (especially the steam catapult). PLN has the ambition to field home grown aircraft carrier to keep the USN in check.Originally posted by cavsg:China recently had been aquiring old aircraft carriers for scrap or coverting to floating theme parks. -
I too, see the potential of RSN acquiring a mini LHD or LPH. The ship would also serve as command ship for a RSN naval task force and for commanding a landing assault. The 21 Div with their pathetic AMX-10PAC will need AH-64Ds to provide them air cover. The heliborne battalion will be able to move en-mass simultaeously in multiple chinooks and Pumas launching from the LSTs and this new helicopter carrier.Originally posted by tankee1981:Will there be any chance that Singapore get a ship similar to this in the distant future? 
-
The problem with carriers is that they are going increasingly senile as weapons systems. Political statements aside, it can be noted that carriers are by themselves, extremely vulnerable systems that now require an inordinate devotion of resources to their protection, just so they can do their job of launching aircraft to carry ordinance to their targets.
In our waters, carriers will be all the more vulnerable to conventional, and unconventional attack. We will have to devote tons of resources just to protect the carrier, and make sure that we have an infaliable shield against attack... all this just to launch aircraft (when it be done so from land)? An attack on a carrier that fails means that the carrier gets to live another day, but a defence that fails means the carrier is destroyed. The pros and cons are just not worth it for us. That is to project airpower from a ship, the costs required to maintain and protect this ship far exceeds that of land bases.
America has the cash and power, and even their carrier battle air group remains a largely ineffective weapon in pratical. In most modern wars they had fought, they barely dropped 1/3 the munitions that were dropped by all air strikes, and all this was done at far higher cost and risk (carrier aircraft suffer higher attrition rates). The carrier is more of an American political weapon then actual weapon of war that they can afford with their seeminGly limitless defence budgets... but do we?
The conventional carrier as we know it today will not be very useful in the smart-munitioned wars of the future. Maybe a hybrid arsenal-UCAV carrier type stealth ship might be envisioned that's far lower in maintaince and more capable of standing on it's own. But that's speculation on my part.
On the other hand, we should be seriously looking into the technology of hypersonic smart munitions that rely on sensor networks to find, and strike their targets anywhere on our map.
A hypersonic missile fired from anywhere in our turf can find it's way towards any potential target within it's operational range in a matter of minutes, if not even less, and destroy the target. A carrier can at best move a few hundred yards in the same amount of time to get it's planes into range, during which it is extremely vulnerable and has to be protected at all costs, and then there's also the factor of losing aircraft that cost you so much to put on a ship you have to protect with a good portion of your defence budget that can be spend getting these very smart munitions... When you do the math, it's far, far cheaper to plink point targets with future cruise missiles.
In the end, if we want to plink targets with our navy, it's far cheaper, and more effective to mount these munitions on our new and future stealth craft, and drive them around the south china sea anniliating Orang Utans in the jungle during our precision test firings.
My guess? The politics of the future will be cruise missile politics rather then carrier power projection... -
Well, whatever your views on carriers are, the pentagon sure ain't sharing them. With the recent denial of airbasing rights by even allies like Turkey, the Pentagon has realised the requirement to be self-sufficient. Naysayers of the carriers like you in the US have been silenced by recent events. Dont ever doubt the carrier. It's versatility is what makes it so well regarded by the US. Can a cruise missile carry out Airspace control? Can it carry out close-air support? Can it carry out ASW? Most importantly, can it establish presence and show the might of the United States? One carrier showing up off the coast of a state means that USA is saying to them, "Dont play play with me". What can come close to such a display of might? "97,000 tons of diplomacy" - nothing comes close.
-
i know, but those carriers were bought when they were sold as scrap to buyers. melbourne had been scrap after studying, kiev and minsk are now floating theme parks, the most interesting is varyag which had a story related to s'pore when she made her way here from black sea, seems that china agreed to send tourists here to get spore agreement to let her pass thru our waters.Originally posted by Joe Black:China is not scrapping them... they are buying them to learn how to build aircraft carriers - reverse engineering.... (especially the steam catapult). PLN has the ambition to field home grown aircraft carrier to keep the USN in check. -
Originally posted by YourFather:
Bah, you are thinking way too old school. Anyway I was speaking on the carriers in revelance to our context, why cruise missiles are far more useful to us then commiting tons of money into getting a pseudo CAG when our LSTs are already near to fufilling that capability.
Well, whatever your views on carriers are, the pentagon sure ain't sharing them. With the recent denial of airbasing rights by even allies like Turkey, the Pentagon has realised the requirement to be self-sufficient. Naysayers of the carriers like you in the US have been silenced by recent events. Dont ever doubt the carrier. It's versatility is what makes it so well regarded by the US. Can a cruise missile carry out Airspace control? Can it carry out close-air support? Can it carry out ASW? Most importantly, can it establish [b]presence and show the might of the United States? One carrier showing up off the coast of a state means that USA is saying to them, "Dont play play with me". What can come close to such a display of might? "97,000 tons of diplomacy" - nothing comes close. [/b]
In the future, however, the carrier's days are greatly limited. Once cruise missile technology develops to the point when you can hit... say... Lebanon from White Sands in just 20 minutes, the carrier grows greatly redundant for hitting targets.
Why do you need grandose airbases or carriers in the future when you don't really need manned aircraft with limited range to plink targets at great cost and risk when a far cheaper, and more effective solution can be arranged?
As for ASW, why do you need a carrier to carry it out for when the most effective system in itself is another SSN or a dedicated craft like a Future Surface Combatant. If anything, it's all to easy to note that the carrier's ASW's capabilities are not really offensive, but they are rather defensive. If anything, the USN devotes an inordinate amount of resources just to make sure it's vulnerable carriers don't fall prey to subs.
Consider all this cost just to project 97,000 tons of steeL, or preform it's primary mission, getting planes and bombs to the target:
Fleet escort.
Defensive aircraft/Interceptors/ASW
Alegis Missile Shield
Subsurface defensive elements
Supportive elements
The cost of all this, is quite staggering, that's why only the US could afford keeping this up. But in the end, technology will evolve way faster then you can spend to defend a 30 knot ship. How would a carrier fare against a saturation attack of future hypersonic smart anti-shipping munitions?
Can the carrier and all it's defensive elements take on a saturation smart munition attack? In order for the defence to work it has and must work 100 percent of the time, for even a single hit on a carrier would most likely put it out of it's job for a few months, and in the worst cases, sink it. And that's a pretty heavy investment into defending an asset who's main job is to act as an airbase at sea. More akin to devoting a large amount of your defense budget into making defensive measures for an SM-1 tank just so it can shoot it's 75mm gun.
I'm not saying the carrier is obsolent for now, but it is going senile, which means that the carrier now has to devote more and more resources towards making sure it survives just to do its job. And that dosen't change no matter how the carrier fares now... it's just simple progression of technology. Like the rifle arm replaced the longbow which itself replaced the thrown rock. At the end of the day, it's the math of war that matters. Such technology is already in the works, and it's only a matter of time.
Why did the battleship get phased out as the king of the sea? Not because it could not do it's job of shelling targets and generally shooting, but simply because a carrier with it's longer reach and ability to deploy munitions with far more range and flexibility was simply far cheaper and more effective to operate. It works the same way in the future world of hypersonic smart munitions.
In the end, while 97,000 tons of steel makes good diplomacy, if it can be taken out with near future technologies, it dramatically alters the status quo.
With the status quo changed, why do cruise missiles need to carry out airspace control or ASW operations? Though this a possible consideration for their future application. All these supposed staples of warfare like air superiority and the like are for one justification, to make sure munitions reach their target. If you can do this without them, why bother with them?
In the end, why does the US still use carriers? Because there is no nation yet on earth which can challange them. But will this always be so? When such technology gets about and it will. As Smith would say... "It is inevitable"
A good read:http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/friedman.htm -
Sometimes it's basically what you see that's a deterent.........and so more effective as a means to project power.
Like in recent years, SAF has been pulling down it's swimming trunks more..........
I don't think you have quite the same effect with cruise missiles........ when buttons are pressed, ppl tend to go to save face mode and all hell break loose.
Having a carrier and it's planes buzz their air defenses once a while maybe a better way. Eg Libya.
As you mentioned, the days of the CBG maybe numbered as technology becomes more readily available to those being bullied and cannot guarantee their safety.
An alternative maybe UCAVs buzzing around, or a DD21 submarine..........that pops up once in a while.[/i] -
Finally, Ivanov visit to ink deal
The carrier deal is expected to be in the region of US $ 1.6 billion
Saikat Datta
New Delhi, January 8
Overcoming last minute glitches, India and Russia will now sign the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier deal when Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov arrives in New Delhi for a two-day visit on January 19.
While the price negotiation committees of both countries had completed their negotiations, the Russians’ demand for a ‘‘growth-of-work’’ clause into the contract held up the deal.
The glitch was worked out amicably by Defence Secretary Ajay Prasad when he met visiting Russian officials last month.
The 44,000-tonne carrier deal, which includes 28 MiG-29 K ship-based fighters and six Kamov helicopters designed for anti-submarine warfare, is expected to be in the region of $ 1.6 billion, sources said.
Detailed contracts have been worked out for refitting the carrier which will be a major addition to IndiaÂ’s capabilities. While the Gorshkov will replace the ageing INS Viraat which will be decommissioned by 2010, the indigenously-built Air Defence Ship is also expected to be commissioned by 2015. The present contract covers the refitting as well as the after-sales supply of spares for the carrier. Besides the deal, India is also expected to make a strong case for the regular supply for its MiG fleet of aircraft.
According to Defence Ministry officials, the IAF has been worried at the irregular supply of spares as well as problems with the front-line SU-30 jets.
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=38866