The F-35B does require jet blast deflectors – it takes off using reheat with the main engine pointed directly aft: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-24.htm
The Harrier sets its four vectored nozelles downwards and aft, avoiding this problem. They could spot four Harrier at once and launch the lot in 40 seconds.
Without the Ski jump the Harriers would have required 152 m and 30 kts wind over deck to launch. It requires 61 m takeoff (lightly loaded) – The F-35B is a different beast.
The flight deck around the port side bow would need to be reinforced and slightly extended to the side for the ski jump. The flight deck itself needs reinforcing to take the jet blast from landings. All this adds weight up high, which would probably require additional ballast. Extra weight drives more of the hull into the water, more drag and less speed.
Only the aft section of the hanger is high enough for replacing the F-35B engine and the 6 m forward is probably too low to hanger the F-35B.
You’d really want the aft elevator to be behind the run-up position – as its stands the VLS prevents another F-35B position to move into the runup position. The next aircraft would need to bought up from the hanger moved backwards and out to the run up position – this would considerably slow down launch rates.
How many tonnes of fuel and ordnance does the Hyuga carry? – the F-35B would use much more than the helos.
Hyuga is unlikely to use the F-35B in the future as she is too small.
The F-35B requires either 167 m from flat deck or 137 m if the ship has a ski jump.
Hyuga is 195 m long, but tapers forward at the bow – this would need to be extended. She is not fitted with a jet blast deflector, so could only launch one F-35B at a time – followed by a spotting the second and so on. Not very conductive to high intensity takeoff operations.
She would also definitely lack the space to be conduct simultaneous landings and takeoffs.
The F-35B wingspan is 10.64 m (non-folding) and 15.5 m long. At best the Hyuga is 33 m wide – and the deck tapers at the bow. To tight a fit for to use the flight deck as a parking space for the F-35B.
The elevators are optomised for operating helicopters – they are in the middle of the flight deck: http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/main/imimage/im20070823STXKE04932308200713.jpg
As above, the elevators need to be 10.7 wide x 15.6 m long (at least!). According to:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ddh-x-schem.htm
They are 13 m wide and 20 m long – large enough for the F-35B.
The hanger is probably too small, especially if the attachment in the first couple of pages is correct (aft elevator is in the wrong place!).
D K Brown (UK naval architect) mentions that, once the helicopters reach 6, the most efficient deck design is the ‘through-deck’.
I remember when the Osumi commissioned the AV-8B rumours started – there is insufficient room between the island and the edge of the flight deck!
3 ASW variants
-nuclear depth bomb (late 60s)
-original torpedo (late 60s)
-improved torpedo (mid 70s)
1 dual-purpose ASW/ASuW (mid 80s)
Yep, by the time the 4th destroyer would enter service, HMAS Anzac would be close to paying off.
Separating second stage increases the chance of defeating any missile defenses due to smaller RCS. Also the possibility of terminal maneuvering for the same reason.
SLL: Sorry mate, but the point is still vaild. And thanks also for the “Vote of Confidence”.
Radar: Mate the 57mm is not so good at short distances especially with proximity fuse based rounds. These rounds need a certain distance to arm which is usually 500m. I agree that a 57mm gun is better refered to as a secondary gun rather than a CIWS and yes it is also dependant on the position of the gun.
The Bofors Mk 3 57mm uses the 3P round which definitely qualifies it for a long range CIWS. The US mount will use this round. This pushes the intercept range out to 6-7 km……
Much closer than 500 m, you will wear the fragments of the missile in any case.
Greek A-7s carry the all aspect AIM-9P4 Sidewinder.
AFDS (Autonomous Free Flight Dispenser System) adds GPS guidance to the inertially guided DWS 24 this enables longer range for higher altitude. Warhead is 20 STABO runway cratering munitions or 96 APAM cluster munitions – another source claims 16 BLU-108 SFM.
Wiggin: 1. Mate the RAN has the Phalanx on the Anzacs when needed, we just swap them with the FFG’s and each other when the units go in to dock.
Never seen SeeWhiz fitted to an Australian Anzac, the RNZN certainty does – any photos?
Ho many Anzacs have been fitted with Harpoon?
Thanks!
Exactly what I wanted.
With this the question becomes will the RAN buy Six hulls to replace the FFG’s on a one for one basis, or will they only buy four settling for a lessor fleet which is being shown now?
Nothing.
The crews from the FFGs will be required for the new AWD. A few years after the Melbourne and Newcastle go 2019-2021, Anzac is due to pay off.
Any replacements would be for the Anzacs. This was confirmed in Plan Blue.
The original plan called for 10 Adelaide class frigates – 4 purchased from USA and 6 built in Australia. The Australian dockyard went broke with only 2 of the class ordered. The Melbourne keel was laid incorrectly and the new owners started from scratch. Newcastle proceeded much more smoothly.
The Anzac class were purchased to save money by buying a class of ship ‘fitted for but not with’ – the Yarra and Swan classes needed replacing urgently
Yea, just ordered from the phone number given. They have just received the issue themselves. Looking forward to receiving it in a couple of weeks.
McConrads have you ever drawn the NFR 90?
Any ideas on how many F-15J Plus have been upgraded?
Are they still to be fitted with IRST and recon pods?