The Ship Model Forum

If these ships were intended to carry fixed winged aircraft such as F-35 or Harrier, then why do they want to build 4 of these little ships instead of 2 bigger ships that can project a reasonable airwing?

The reason why you want 4 smallish helicopter carriers instead of 2 larger carriers is because you are confident that you can have surface and air superiority, such as that to be provided by US CVBG, and you want to be able to cover a wide area and maintain a sizeable ASW force on station. Why would you want to do that? To break a PLAN submarine blockade, perhaps of Taiwan, perhaps of the main shipping route to Middle East, perhaps even of home islands of Japan.

Provided these ships are intended for the Chinese - there being no other possibility - it suggests that the type of war envisioned by JMD involves a fairly sustained, protracted campaign. A submarine blockade isn't worth a dime if the war is over in 2 weeks.

It does suggest that, at least in Tokyo, it is envisioned that the future naval picture in East Asia will be somewhat similar to the German-UK situation of WWI or WWII.

Werner, that design looks to be compatable with something on the order of the Harrier or VSTOL version of the JSF. Granted it would not be able to carry a lot of aircraft but small numbers to get their feet "wet" again

The truth is when is a CV not a CV . If the JMDF DDH could support the X35 Lightning no matter how limited in numbers then it is a CV not DDH but then we are not to mention the "C" word in the same sentence as JMDF.
Dave Wooley

Werner wrote:Japanese "16DDH" design.

16DDH seems to be entirely consistent with Japanese policy. A departure would be a 30,000-40,000 fixed wing carrier. They have had 50+ years to watch carriers homeported in Japan, and have participated in strategic and tactical planning for carriers for just as long. If they identify the need for their own carrier, building one will be no technical or professional difficulty. Only the politiics could be a problem.

Are those Aegis PARs?

It would be interesting to see if those 2 elevators can hold F-35s. Otherwise this ship would just be a weak and overweight 2nd line ASW platform, certainly in no way reminiscent of tradition notion of cruiser.

A 25-30 knot container ship would be hard to find.

Japanese "16DDH" design.

16DDH seems to be entirely consistent with Japanese policy. A departure would be a 30,000-40,000 fixed wing carrier. They have had 50+ years to watch carriers homeported in Japan, and have participated in strategic and tactical planning for carriers for just as long. If they identify the need for their own carrier, building one will be no technical or professional difficulty. Only the politiics could be a problem.


As far as Varyag is concerned, more realistic training could be accomplished with a 25-30 knot merchant conversion than lugging this hunk of overweight rust around anywhere.

Varyag was designed for features which are not useful to the PLAN (like launch tubes for very large cruise missiles which the ship will never carry, and so on. If the goal is to develop skills and doctrine, a converted container ship is the perfect first step. Using Varyag has a "hand me down" patina which I am sure is something the PLAN would like to avoid.

The true usefulness of Varyag and the ex-Commonwealth carriers scrapped in China was in understanding design and fitting details not obvious in a port call or navy day visit. It is not necessary to put the ship to sea to understand these lessons.

chuck wrote: A unpowered but floating flight deck, capable of being towed around to face the right direction, perhaps even capable of being towed to something near a reasonable wind-over-deck speed, is clearly a better training aid.

Ok, I'll believe that when I see it. I can see the value of a static landing platform, but actually towing it around at anything that could be called speed simply sounds like a whacky idea (which doesn't mean they won't do it, of course).

How big is this chunk of steel? 65.000 tons? Surely makes for some nice display when a towing line breaks and the thing goes out of control...

Jorit

chuck wrote:There is only 1 "C" in there.

They still seem to be C-averse.

Myoko cough Chokai cough



Jorit

There is only 1 "C" in there.

They still seem to be C-averse.

Dave Wooley wrote:I note that the Japanese Maritime Defence Force are designing 4 vessels which are termed DDHs or helicopter carrying destroyers. Is the definition for these 20000ton through deck destroyers just another euphemism to avoid using the "C" word . This sounds rather familiar remember the "through Deck cruiser"
Dave Wooley

If you review the names of JMSDF Aegis destroyers and the present DDHs, it would appear they have already gotten over the "C" word :

Myoko, Chokai, Kongo, Kirishima, Hiei, Haruna, Kurama, Shirane.

Werner wrote:If you look through other people's Google Earth points of interest, you will find the Chinese have several aircraft carriers marked out on runways around the country. They also have duplicates of several US air fields for some reason.

Aircraft carriers marked out on the run way doesn't have real operational arresting cables. It also can't verify things like will the pilot have unexpected difficulties landing if the ship is headed directly into a setting sun. A unpowered but floating flight deck, capable of being towed around to face the right direction, perhaps even capable of being towed to something near a reasonable wind-over-deck speed, is clearly a better training aid.

If you look through other people's Google Earth points of interest, you will find the Chinese have several aircraft carriers marked out on runways around the country. They also have duplicates of several US air fields for some reason.

Sounds very plausible.

Of course, if Varyag (or whatever she will be named) is only used as a stationary training aid, she will be useless for development of operational procedures. It will be interesting to see how they handle that.

Jorit

It is looking very much like the flight deck at least will be brought to operational status, perhaps as an stationary training aid.

But I doubt the entire ship will actually be brought up to full operational status . The ship was delivered without engines, boilers, rudders or propellers. There hasn't been reports of new engineering plant being fitted while the ship is in Chinese possession. The deck work probably would not have been carried out if the ship were still to be gutted for the installation of new engineering plant.

This fits with recent reports of official Chinese indication of construction of indigenous 60,000 ton carrier slated for completion around 2012-2015. The Varyag was so gutted and so decrepit that bring her back to full operational status would probably cost as much as a new carrier, and such an effort would only make sense if the Chinese Navy needed a carrier and had no prospect of getting one tailor made to its requirements. If the Chinese are actually in the midst of a carrier construction right now, then converting the Varyag would make little sense. It would divert funds from domestic program which must receive favor if simply due to national pride. Having been designed for some one else's requirements it is unlikely to be perceived to fit Chinese needs as well as a native vessel. The amount of work involved means it would not get the Chinese a carrier much sooner than just waiting for their own. In all likelihood the Varyag will act purely as a training and engineering support for China's own carrier.

chuck wrote:I wonder what the Chinese will designate the former Varyag. She was bought under the pretext of conversion to floating casino. There is no news of slot machines being seen aboard, however aircraft handling non-skid surface has been applied.

Aircraft carrying blue water floating casino? You must enlist to gamble.

Avaiation Amusement Liner...



Here again, I'm really wondering what they'll eventually do with it.

Jorit

chuck wrote:Even the 65,000 ton Russian carrier is still called an "Heavy Aviation Cruiser". Although it appears the Russians did get over the "C" part, they still have an hang up on the "Arrier" part.

In all fairness it should be said that the operational doctrine behind the Japanese You-name-it is probably more carrier-like than that of the Russian breed of carriers (though that isn't really true for the latest one, obviously).

Jorit

I wonder what the Chinese will designate the former Varyag. She was bought under the pretext of conversion to floating casino. There is no news of slot machines being seen aboard, however aircraft handling non-skid surface has been applied.

Aircraft carrying blue water floating casino? You must enlist to gamble.

Even the 65,000 ton Russian carrier is still called an "Heavy Aviation Cruiser". Although it appears the Russians did get over the "C" part, they still have an hang up on the "Arrier" part.

Indeed - the "through-deck destroyer with non-vertical launch facilities"...



Jorit

I note that the Japanese Maritime Defence Force are designing 4 vessels which are termed DDHs or helicopter carrying destroyers. Is the definition for these 20000ton through deck destroyers just another euphemism to avoid using the "C" word . This sounds rather familiar remember the "through Deck cruiser"
Dave Wooley