I know Australia operates the AIM-132 but they recently adopted the AIM-9X for their Super Hornets. Have they decided which they will use on the F-35?

Aim-9X.

IMHO, this is just the type of reasoning that led to so many delays in program. A test program is structures so as to perform tests sequentially. Skimming some and problems induced can be very harmful to a program as often they were considered as “ticked” for further testing.

A test program can be structured sequentially but does not have to be. Yes there is a critical path but there are/were a significant number of tests that have no specific order of completion beyond the obvious.

We have seen this time and again where tests have been brought forward or delayed based on specific variant progress pr identified issues. Given that nearly 90% of total program testing has been completed since the rebaseline and the program has remained on target and on cost clearly it isn’t an issue.

You said something to the effect that something significant would have to change internationally for Japan to consider making these carriers into fixed wing carriers.

If the rapid building and militerization of islands throughout the south China sea and the commissioning and building of 2 aircraft carriers isn’t a significant change internationally, then I don’t know what is.

Thr activities of China in the SCS is a blatant power move.

I should have added the word policy between significant and change to make it more clear that the statement was refering to Japanese political policy, not the behaviour of countries around them.

As for increased tensions in the SCS, Japan is more than capable of building large fleet carriers if they so wished. The presence of a helicopter carrier capable of holding at best 15-18 F-35B and limited stores for persistent strike would not significantly change the balance of power in the region. Japan would be better positioned and more influential by doubling its submarine fleet than building a carrier force.

I thought it was constructed to allow for it to be retrofitted into an aircraft carrier in the future. I didn’t know that the retrofit (fully functional elevator ect) is already done.

The idea that sub components like elevators are fully functional makes it more ridiculous than I previously thought.

And now I don’t believe that the deck isn’t properly coated to allow for F 35B’s.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. The vessel was designed and constructed as a helicopter carrier including deck elevators. The requirements to operate helos match very closely with operating fixed wing aircraft.

My question was whether the elevators are rated for the weight of the F-35B.

As for why they don’t operate F-35B, the vessel is designated as a Helicopter Destroyer and the intent is to operate it as such. Doesn’t mean at some future date they couldn’t start using F-35B but that would be a significant change politically both domestically and internationally. China already has problems with the vessel in its current form…

STOVL aircraft could abandon a damaged ship while CATOBAR aircraft are at the mercy of the catupult equipment and the time that it takes to get them off. Theoretically if a carrier is on fire, all STOVL’s could abandon at the same time. Saving jets and crew. They could also land on friendly vessels in the area.

A large number of dependent factors to allow that to happen. All jets would have to have enough fuel to take off vertically, as well as essentially no other payload, to then land on whatever was available. If the vessel is on fire it has probably been hit by a weapon of some sort, potentially impacting the flight deck anyway. How many deck spots are available on most STOVL capable vessels, perhaps 6 on an LHD and up to ten on the QE meaning for bigger vessels you wouldn’t get much of the air group off.

A squad of B’s could land on this thing in a war against China

[ATTACH=CONFIG]251597[/ATTACH]

The Izumo would be capable of operating STOVL aircraft with a few modifications. I would be interested to know what the elevators are rated for.

Russia create there own maths

Can I use that as my signature block?

Too small, right. We are talking about X-band engagement radar and X-band SARH seeker here.

And this is the problem. The following journal article http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf takes a worst case F-35 RCS assessment and calculates the probable detection values for common systems. Given the X-Band nature of the S-300 30N6E1 we get, for the average F-35 RCS, just a 7nm detection range. How likely then are active seekers, let alone a SARH seeker, that is a 50th the size, going to get reflections of a minuscule target return, expected to fare?

Who said the Russians are not already using this concept? As said in the first post, the strange notion of Russians to stick to SARH even in their lastest SAM systems has brought be to this idea in the first place. There are no hardware changes necessary for this operation mode. Even the S-500 seems to have SARH elements and the active seeker for naval S-400 is most likely for over horizon engagement of sea skimmers.

A far more likely reason is that Russians systems are attempting to overcome Western advanced jamming and see SARH as a potential means to counter this. Keeping the counter EW in the engagement radar is likely to allow for more advanced techniques and more easily modified radars (software techniques) than a host of smaller missile seeker units often in sealed containers. Not going to be too effective against 5th gen assets though…