http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/...0911230073.html

The planned helicopter destroyer will have a length of 248 meters, a displacement of 19,500 tons and a capability to transport up to 14 helicopters, 4,000 people and 50 trucks. It would also be able to refuel other ships.

This size alone makes it close to the new America class LPH.

Nice find.. ;)

its not new. this 22DDH was requested in the 2010 fiscal year budget. i think brother YF posted it up sometime ago.

but note the dual-use. apparently will carry extra fuel for refuellling other ships. meant to deploy GMSDF troops on long range PKO/ support US missions under the Nye treaty/revision to the US-Japan security alliance.

with a strengthened deck and a couple of F35bs this will probably be a escort / carrier (if you'd consider the nimitz class as supercarriers.)

but the thing is JASDF dont plan to acquire F35b-s yet. if they do, then it will be a serious reinterpretation of article 9. but they have their reasons for such a "carrier". from okinawa to hokkaido, thats a huge amount of ocean to patrol. if they dont have a super-cruising fighter that can cover from end-end. the next closest thing that could help provide air coverage would be a small carrier.

Hmmmm, I see..

This news is somewhat a closer step towards acquiring F-35B for the so-called "Helicopter Destroyers"..

Japan mulls F-35 purchase as next main fighter jet

iirc, robert gates has always been pushing for Japan to buy the F35 rather than the F-22. more money more partners in the project, lower costs for everyone.

key thing here that we dont know if they plan to buy F35s, which variant will it be.

there are academics who argue that with a rising china and changing Japanese voter demographic (less young people, more people in their 50s-60s), the Japanese electorate has become increasingly defensive realist in their outlook and are especially suspicious of relations with china. this would make the purchase of the F35b relatively unopposed.

coupled that with, Ichiro Ozawa, the current party secretary of the DPJ, the real kingmaker behind the scenes. has always called for a stronger more assertive Japan to play a greater security role and on the international stage. what would that mean ? how will that affect the JSDF procurement and expenditure ? note that the KC-767, Osumi class LST and Hyuga class DDH have all been acquired under the desire to expand and take part in more PKO.

after Japan passed the international peace cooperation law in 1992 (an initiative sponsored by Ozawa), the Japanese have taken part in cambodia, golan heights, east timor, iraq and several others but in relatively minor sized deployments. their most significant contribution to date in monetary terms would be the refuelling of US ships and other allied vessels in the gulf. the most significant troop deployment in media terms would be the effort to aid reconstruction in iraq. but largest commitment and effort in humanitarian aid and reconstruction would be the east timor and aceh boxing day tsunami incident

if i recall correctly, the Hyuga class has yet to be deployed or applied in action yet as the Hyuga was recently comissioned and in active service only from last year. Ise is still on sea trials i think. interesting to fund an even larger 22DDH when the 16DDH and 3 osumi class LST appear to be a dramatic increase in troop lift/ supply support capabilities without a similar growth or increase in PKO/ international collective security obligations.

we live in interesting times where danger is around the corner.

apparently from what ive heard, the 16DDH elevator deck is too small for the F35b. and the deck is not made or thick enough to withstand the F35b engine exhaust/heat. wouldnt doubt that the Hyuga class /16DDH are truly helicopter carriers with inability to field F-35b unless they go for some major structural overhaul and refits.

the 22DDH on the other hand, may be something else altogether. IIRC, when YF posted the initial 22DDH link, (him or someone else, apologize if i mistook the wrong person, memory fails me), he noted that the 22DDH is only shorter than the Nimitz by 70m. the unladen displaced tonnage is 19,000 iirc, larger than the Hyuga class's 13,000 tonnage. fully laden, it might be able to carry alot more.

They will not acquire fighters; they will acquire "Self-Defense-Air-Vehicles".

I will be heading to Kure next week. Hopefully I will be able to have some photo opportunity on the destroyer

its homeported at yokosuka, relatively near tokyo bay.

good luck in your photoshooting efforts though. should be fun. the eta-jima island that is opposite kure port used to be an imperial navy training ground. not too sure if its still used to train JMSDF people. i know it used to be used in the 70s-80s but not too sure today.

if you get pictures of the Aegis SM-3 BMD destroyers, do share with us here. that would be totally neat.

hyuga is home port in yokosuka...

also looking forward to your photos on the jmsdf ships if you drop by kure

Any chance RSN getting something like that in the future? Given that our SLOC is important and that we are patrolling further away.....a vessel of this sort would give us more clout...plus the fact that we are looking at F35s too...

Well, they can always entice the USMC to use their carrier during joint training/operations. That way, they will not contravene Article 9..... :D

Maybe RSN / DSTA / ST Marine would observe first what Malaysia will buy or eyeing to buy for their MPSS requirement..

Only if we can cut the complement of the ship by 3/4 or more. That thing's crew requirements are close to that of a Nimitz!

A lot of alternatives...

Ship class crew size (excl air crew):

Mistral (FR): 160
Juan Carlos (SP): 243
Hyuga (JP): 340
Chakri Nareubet (TH): 455
Cavour (IT): 486
Queen Elizabeth (UK): 600
Principe De Asturia (SP): 600
Garibaldi (IT): 630
Invincible (UK): 680
Charles de gaulle (FR): 1150
Wasp (US): 1292
Kuznetzov: 1960
Nimitz (US): 3250

Osumi class is more likely a better fit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osumi_class_landing_ship_tank

Complement: 135, 138 (LST4002-4003)

Missed out the following as well:

Iwo Jima (US): 667
Tarawa (US): 902
Minas Gerais (BR): 1300
Vikrant (IN): 1345
Viraat (IN): 1830

what about canberra class ? those appear to be a nice fit too. just that it isnt in service yet.

Tot the canberras are based on the BPE concept which is represented by the Juan Carlos. Same complement as well (243).

hmm, afaik, canberra not fitted with ski jumps for F35b. could potentially be fitted with, but not certain yet. plenty of artist impressions of the canberra class fielding F35bs. but no word from canberra about whether F35bs are going to be purchased and fielded.

im also curious about the Ford class carrier electro magentic launch system. apparently one reason for the size of current nimitz class carriers is because steam driven catapults take up huge area and space below deck.

will an EMALs system make relatively smaller platforms like say for instance, the Canberra or 22DDH capable of launching and retriving F35Cs ? or does it still fall far short of necessary flight deck and space ? it has 30% more launching power and takes up less room. also compatible with CODAG propulsion.

Australian govt already confirmed that they will not be buying the -B version. All -A.

As to emals, don't really know much about it. However, it was discussed in a bit of detail on F-16.net so I'll refer you to that...

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t...torder-asc.html

Makes me wonder why their new DDH has such a large complement for its size. Do the refueling/resupply bits need so much more manpower?

Is the new DDH referred to, the new Hyugas or the new DDH replacement suggested for the Shiranes?

i think the DDH referring to the 22DDH. the biggest combat ship in the MSDF since wwII. besides, Hyuga class not known to have ship-ship refuelling capacity.

DDH is just a designation. the numbers are more important. 16 DDH= vessel laid down/approved (cant remember which) in the year of Hesei reign (Emperor Akihito's reign). 18 = laid down or approved in 18 th year of Heisei.

22 would mean laid down or approved in 2010.

Thks. If 22 and 24DDH, don't think there are any official numbers on crew size yet so can't comment. The size is approx cavour/bpe size so I'd expect something between 350-600 crew.

Asahi Shimbun's estimate of 4000 is a bit high though. Wasp class carries 3,163 in total and that's for a 40,000 ton amph. At 25,000 tons, I doubt if it'd reach that high.

Forget to add in

Dokdo (SK): 300

i think its like this

Hyuga- 16DDH
Ise - 18DDH
-yet to be named behemoth replacing the shirane destroyer - 22DDH

afaik, no order or decision to acquirer a second hull of the 22DDH class.

22DDH's not been approved for acquisition either. Just concept phase at the moment. News reports were based on Japan govt budgeting for it (not sure if budget is even approved yet).

There's a lot of speculation on the names though. My 2 yen is on "Yamato" and "Musashi".

The Osumi class class would be fit in nicely if the RSN is not venturing into anything bigger than a LPD.. The Canberra / Mistral class would be wonderful though, that is if a LHD is in the cards..

Anyway, heard some rumours or news some time back that ST Marine was suppose to collaborate with an Indian shipyard to build LPD or LHD for the Indian Navy or something?? Any progress on it??

How different are the Oosumis from the Endurance LPD in terms of role?

Osumi Class

Personally was looking at something which is bigger than the Osumis....something which can operate more helos but pass off as something other than a helo carrier....which could cause our neighbours some uneasiness....however operationally to have such a vessel would strengthen our naval reach and ability to protect our SLOCs. The helos can offer surface protection and offensive alternatives, mine counterwarfare plus anti-submarine warfare too....our frigates would have surface (though our jets have the reach too) and underwater protection.....

Just my personal views.

I think what is missing in your discussion thus far is a more indepth discussion on the multi-role requirements and also the amphibious force support requirement. Eg. The ADF wants to put a reinforced combined arms battlegroup ashore in the face of opposition so it needs two large 27,000 tonne Canberra-Class LHDs to do the job. BTW the two Canberra-Class ships are not designed to support the F-35B.

And once we acquire a significantly 'capable vessel', there will be more pressure/request for us to deploy such said capabilities in support of US/Australian operations (eg. East Timor, CTF-151 and so on). Keep in mind that Operation Flying Eagle raised expectations of deployment from our friends - which may not be good for the RSN's continued development of our amphibious and ASW capabilities (if RSN's ops tempo continues to be raised).

Which boils down to whether 4 endurance LPDs can fulfil current needs...

On the other hand, if its a CVL justification, then its a different matter altogether.

agreed. with great (air projection power) comes great[er international] responsibilities and commitments. that i wont deny. and i completely agree with you that it will place a strain and consume more resources. but i think its an inevitability which we cant avoid. read the venice paragraph.

regarding canberra class, there was a white paper published the the RAN calling for a third canaberra class and for canberra (the federal govt) to acquire F35bs but that white paper also noted that canberra was unlikely to approve it. i believe the base design that Navantia is using for the Canberra class is also the same base design being used for the Juan carlos, which has a ski-jump and is expected to field F35bs.



but to be honest, im alarmed at at the LHDs and large LPDs that have been popping up since 2000. i mean, we are living in a post-cold war world. there are no superpower rivalries left to shape military action and alliances, why the build-up or acquisition of these vessels ? obviously military chiefs or strategic planners are factoring something or having something that figures prominently in their long-term outlooks that they would need such vessels. my intention is not to hint at any particular country's rise, but just to indicate the general trend. i dont think our strategic planners are behind the curve in sharing the same outlook or understanding why.

and a larger ship dosent necessarily mean amphibious force support requirement or support for amphibuous ops. we could easily take the same route like the Japanese. complement American naval deficiencies. for instance, a large flat top could easily field CH-53Ks that can facilitate mine-clearing in case of any SEA sea lane blockade. a larger flat top can allow multiple choppers with ASW dunking sonar to find lurking diesel electric subs in blue/green water conditions. it would also allow the tempo of humanitarian aid/reconstruction ops to be increased.

this is the quality of dual-use but not offensive use which i think the Hyuga and a newer generation of LPDs represent. very interesting possibilities without the need to appear threatening. Im probably talking over my head but the closest historical parallel i can think of a city-state with heavy reliance on the sea, was Venice. Venice dominated trade for 400 years and had a extremely capable navy. especially if you compare how oil today and salt then are very similar economic lifebloods of both city-states. the key difference between then and now is that now inter-state aggression and territorial invasion is taboo. we can maintain a strong navy without fear of territorial invasion and use it decisively to contribute to stability.

i personally feel that a strong navy is inevitable given our context. a big flat top would go a long way towards complementing american naval strength (still the only nation with 11 supercarriers and the ability to field full strength CBG although the brits might complain otherwise and the Japanese can do all but lack a full sized carrier to be the core of a CBG), ensure our SLOC security and yet demonstrate our peaceful intentions. peace through strength (i believe this was R.Raegan's reason for the large 1980s buildup). and its unlikely to encounter dramatic opposition that we are introducing new capabilities to the region. thailand set the norm with the Chakr and its possibly feasible. but it is always possible that this could raise or trigger latent regional insecurities.

regarding ops tempo, im not too sure about that but from what i do know is that the ratings in the navy are gradually becoming an all regular force. guess that wont affect ops tempo and training. in fact, might be even better since the core of your force has actual ops experience and remain in that position for much longer periods rather than 2 years.

[edit grammer and then some]

For both South Korea and Japan, LHD escorts are useful to ensure SLOC from US to Asia-pacific (for US mil intervention) or AP to Middle East particularly in the field of ASW.

Australia's key areas of concern are SE-Asia/pacific. Seen in that light, canberras are a necessity. However, gone are the days when Aus will only shift troops with UK battleship escort......

Are you quoting from Spiderman? :)
Love that comic.

If the RSN is properly resourced, it is not a problem.

Right now, the RSN is operating at a higher tempo than what we had resourced it for. This means that there is some strain (within the organisation), especially given our lean manning philosophy. In all cases of real deployments, the actual crew manning levels was much higher than what was announced for the Endurance Class vessel. This means we drew manpower from other navy squadrons or ships and this sort of topping up, puts a strain on the organization. Keep in mind that there are only 3 deployable Endurance Class vessels - as 1 is used to train the midshipmen.

Currently, the Op tempo of the Endurance Class is so high we rarely use them for our own equipment/troop lift for our own missions. When an operational crew is sent out for 3 months, we lose that ship's services for 5 months (as 2 months was used to prepare for the deployment). This also means we have 2 Endurance Class ships to rotate for standby duty...

And CTF-151 will never end... When we send 1 ship, we are sending 1/3 of our total deployable force.

I'm not sure if what you are talking about is a white paper, as Australian sources in other forums have confirmed that there are no plans to integrate the F-35B with the Canberra Class. And there is no prep-work in doctrine development to acquire such a capability.

Taken in context, I'm not alarmed at all, actually. Countries compete for influence and the US has the most influence in Asia/Pacific due to the fact that they have the most capabilities.

Singapore projected more power in Dec 2004/Jan 2005 than China and India. That puts these regional powers to shame and they took notice (Remember, what I said about being noticed - it's not always a good thing). The bar has been raised for Singapore. All the talk about the rise of China - where were they after the Dec 2004 Tsunami? It showed up their lack of means to project 'soft power'. This has resulted in China building their own hospital ship. In India's case, their concern about the rise of China has resulted in them having a rethink about their navy and how to strike a proper balance.

In Australia's case, East Timor showed up their logistics limitations, which they are now working to correct with the acquisition of the Canberra-Class and the C-17s. Nothing to be alarmed about.

:P :P :D :P :P

Both Japan and S. Korea are able to project power to protect their SLOCs.

that is true, anyone who has to plan staffing for guard duties, call centres etc knows that you only get to use 2/3 of your total assets at any one time, on a sustainable basis.

looks like we need three more "mother of all endurance." B)

so, in a moment of compassion, we allowed everyone to take a peek and now they know we wear polka dots? :lol:

I am not so sure that is a bad thing, considering that all the while we had intended our potential adversaries to know what we can do, but to never try to tempt us or force us into a corner.

It's a good thing. Everyone was impressed (the speed at which we deployed, that all 3 deployable ships went and we deployed a division level planning HQ, plus ground troops that were on the scene even before the US Marines). It's just that the bar is now raised. Before that we did not even admit that our Chinooks had done landing deck qualifications on the Endurance Class.