Italy Produces First F-35 Outside US

a reply to: spaceman42

This time Lockheed will have oversight and quality control on scene for a good while. While Italy is doing final assembly Lockheed still has their name and reputation at risk. They're not going to take a chance on future contracts because of quality issues at what's essentially a sub contractor.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spaceman42

This time Lockheed will have oversight and quality control on scene for a good while. While Italy is doing final assembly Lockheed still has their name and reputation at risk. They're not going to take a chance on future contracts because of quality issues at what's essentially a sub contractor.

That's good to hear! Thanks for the info
Wouldn't want any of our 35's to fall out of the sky. We only get 37...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Japan and Australia are also building "destroyer/ helicopter tenders" that looks suspiciously like aircraft carriers.

So is Italy. Believe me the F 35 program is far more combat ready than we are letting on to. Why else would three different nations be building a minimum of two ships a piece for the aircraft?

faco Italy

a reply to: Greathouse

Based on their size and deck shape they will be almost useless for F-35s. The Japanese and Australians are getting the A, so that's a moot point anyway. They may eventually get Bs, but a flat deck STOL carrier and F-35 isn't the best combination.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Are you sure about that here's one of Japan's new "destroyers".



destroyer?

a reply to: Greathouse

Yeah. I went around arguing about them a couple times when they were first announced.

The first problem is they need B models. The A isn't capable of operating off any ship.

The next problem is that they're flat deck STOL carriers. If you look at the Wasp, or the America, you'll notice just a hint of an up angle at the bow.

A STOL carrier has a problem when launching or recovering. The aircraft involved are extremely restricted on weight. That means a really light fuel load, and slightly more weapons, or a light weapons load and a little more fuel. A ski jump deck, or a slight angle like the US uses gives a little more load capability, but they're still extremely limited. So the choices are top go with those limits, or have tanker capability in the area and refuel as soon as you're airborne. The problem there is that would require a land based tanker to carry enough fuel to be useful. If you're in am area that land based tankers can't operate, or are at extreme range you really have a problem.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You know far more than me. So F 35's are a non-issue on the new destroyer helicopter tender platforms. Unless Japan redefines it's orders for F 35 or lets the US Marines operate the F 35 b's off their destroyer helicopter tenders which is not outside the realm of possibilities.

a reply to: Greathouse

That could happen. They'd only be able to carry a few at any one time, depending on hangar deck size though.

a reply to: Greathouse

Given the lead time to get a fleet of -B's, not to mention the aforementioned modifications that the Izumos would need, it might make more sense for Japan to convert the Izumos for modest CATOBAR ops (think a Japanese Foch-class) where they'd then have the option to pick between the cheaper -C's, F/A-18E's, or more far-out options like the navalized F/A-XX or a navalized ATD-X.

They'd be light carriers for sure, but the Izumos are just big enough for it to be a possibility.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Zaphod58

Are you sure about that here's one of Japan's new "destroyers".

destroyer?

There is a huge difference between a flattop for Carrieng helicopters and one for fighters.

Without a long run way they will full off the end or they won't be able to carry any meaningful amount of ordinance.

a reply to: crazyewok

That's always the problem with STOL/STOBAR carriers. Even the larger full deck ski jump carriers can only launch aircraft at about half MTOW at the heaviest.

a reply to: crazyewok

Read the link it is 750 meters long and 20 meters wider. But Zap has already explained the issues.

a reply to: Greathouse

It's fun to watch some of the videos of ski jump launches. Some of them go off the jump, and disappear below jump level until they can get enough speed to climb. You don't know if they're still flying or not until after they climb.

The Australian carrier is the Amphibious Assault ship "Canberra".The next one will be in 2016 and called the "Adelaide".Helo ops only.
Australian AAS

a reply to: Blackfinger

"Helo ops only", huh?

I'm just saying that I've never once seen a helo use a ski jump like the ones the Canberra's quite clearly have...

a reply to: Barnalby

The Australian Navy works closely with the US. I'm sure at times US F-35Bs will operate off them. They currently don't have anything in inventory or on order that can fly off them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Look at how long most naval vessels stay in service these days (I remember watching the front line Ticonderoga's being launched at Bath in the late 80's as a kid), and it seems that lots of navies these days, especially ones near China, are allowing themselves some, uh, "growing room" with their "amphibious assault" capacity.

The Falklands with the Atlantic Conveyor taught us just how devastating even the most rudimentary STOVL-carrier can be when used right. If China ratchets up it's sabre-rattling, then you can bet that the Aussies will be happy to be in the position of being a couple phonecalls to LM away from having two functioning aircraft carriers.

The same goes with Japan and the potentially much more capable Izumos. Those will be a relatively minor refit away from being the most capable STOVL carriers out there this side of the USS America or the Queen Elizabeth, and as I've said, they're big enough that if the political will is there, CATOBAR with F-35'S, F/A-18E's, or better yet with Rafales becomes a very real possibility.

a reply to: Barnalby

Lieutenant Commander Paul Hannigan,..... Also up here is a large ramp for launching fixed-wing aircraft that Hannigan calls the "ski jump". But the navy has no plans to use it, he says. "It was cheaper for us to stick with the ship's original configuration, which includes the ski jump, rather than removing it," he says.

www.smh.com.au...

Although they say they will never use the ramp, it is definitely a possibility if the need arises, and like you said, just a phone call and a stoke of the pen away from having some -35b's to fly off her.

a reply to: Barnalby

They would be extremely hard pressed to go to a CATOBAR system. Even if they have the room, the power to run it is going to be problematical. They take a lot of room and even more power. That's why outside the US there are something like two CATOBAR ships in the rest of the world's navies combined.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Remember we're talking about a nation with just about the most intact shipbuilding capabilities on the planet (short of Newport News), and a nation that has a real advantage over even the US in the engineering and manufacture of the kinds of high-complexity, high-stress, and high-tolerance mechanical subsystems that go into a CATOBAR system(this side of Germany).

If anybody would be able to Kaizen a CATOBAR system, it would be Japan.

This is a nation that went from feudalism to reverse-engineering British dreadnaughts and building the only functional 18" naval gun system in less than 50 years. I highly doubt that MHI, IHI, Fuji, Hitachi, etc wouldn't be up to the challenge if the political need were to arise.

That being the case, I look at the Izumos with their massive, little-used interior volume, high freeboard, shallow draft, etc and see a design that was clearly built with some major expansion potential in mind. It would be well within Japan's industrial capabilities to turn those 30,000 ton "helicopter destroyers" into 40-45,000 ton "aircraft carriers" in relatively little time.