Amphibious ships and air power

cherry

Banned Member
Some sources ahve stated that the ship offered to the RAN will be the 'strategic protection ship' without the ski ramp. This would seem to be a short sighted approach if true, even if the vesel is only intended to operate helos, as the cost of retrofitting a ramp later is much greater than doing it in the beginning and provides usfeul interoperability with our allies. Call if future proofing (a nice RN term for covering all bases).

Does anybody have any information on whether this is true or not?
I read an article in the Melbourne Herals Sun a few months ago that stated that Defence were seriously considering purchasing STOVL JSF to operate from the new amphib ships. Based on the usual ADF leadership decision making, we may have a decision some time before the end of the century.:D
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The decision will probably be made in 2008. I think a thorough evaluation of the STOVL version was one of the main reasons the decision was pushed back from 2006. I think the RAAF will end up with the F-35B and RAN will finally get some air cover again...
 

Dinivan

New Member
Info about the spanish LHD can be found in the spanish armada website(in spanish):
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/FichaTecnica.asp?SecAct=05202 where among many other information, you can find all the specifications regarding to aircraft in the "capacidad aerea" menu


I'll try to translate some of this information (hope it helps :) ):
  • Total lenght: 230.8m
  • Flight deck lenght: 201.9m
  • Autonomy: 9,000 miles at 15 knocks
  • Propulsion: 2 x POD, 1 x Gas turbine + 2 x Diesel generators
  • Displacement at full load depends on the configuration:

For amphibious operations: 27,079tn at 19,5knocks



For air operations: 24,660tn at 21knocks




  • Air capacity:
Flight deck can operate simultaneously with the following aircraft configurations:
www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/images/cubiertavuelo.jpg
V-22 Osprey or
AV-88 Plus or
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) or
6 x NH-90 or
6 x SH-3D or
4 x CH-47 Chinook or
6 x AB 212

The flight hangar has space for operating VSTOL aircrafts (Harrier and/or JSF) and helicopters (NH-90, SH-3D, AB-212, etc.).
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/images/hangarvuelo.jpg

the general distribution may be as following:
12 aircraft in the hangar (including CH-47), being capable of increasing the number to 30 if using the light vehicles hangar while 6 units stay on the flight deck.
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/images/capaera.jpg

the max number of AV-8B the hangar is able to handle is the following:
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/images/capmaxav8b.jpg

  • Vehicle transport capacity:
Light cargo hangar:
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/images/vehangarcargaligera.jpg
Light vehicles: it has 2046 square meters.

Heavy cargo hangar:
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/images/vehangarcargapesada.jpg
Heavy vehicles: the ship has 1,400 square meters capacity for heavy vehicles such as M60 and Leopard. If using the dock as a garage the capacity increases by 975 square meters, being able to hold 46 vehicles.
  • Amphibious capacity:
The ship has a floodable dock with capacity for:
4 x LCM-1E/LCM-8 + 4/6 RIB's SUPERCAT, or
1 x LCAC or
LVT's

Dock dimensions: 69.3x16.8m
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/images/anfhangarcargapesada.jpg


Ah! forgot to say that those who know spanish may be interested in these two links:
http://www.militar.org.ua/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7841&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 it's a post about the LHD in a spanish forum
http://www.asociacion-mnu.net/amnu_art1.htm here there's an extensive article about the ship
 
Last edited:

cherry

Banned Member
I really think that this ship will be chosen for ADF. All of the talk from all of the sources seems to be favouring this type. It will be interesting, regardless of which type of ship ADF select as to the composition of aircraft the ADF operate and in what numbers from these ships. I guess until AIR9000 and AIR6000 gets finalised, we won't know what capabilities and options we have to operate from these ships. According to an article I read in the April edition of "Australian Defence Magazine", the second pass approval from government and approval of the preferred designer will be announced in October/November this year. The contract signature with the designer will be in December 2005 or early January 2006. The preferred ship builder will be announced in August/September 2006.
 

Cootamundra

New Member
So, we're getting closer to a decision. I along with a few of you think the Navantia ship looks like the one that will get the nod. I also think that we will see the purchase of least 1 sqd of JSF-B's for the RAN. That's actually why they went for the JSF in the first place - i.e., it delivers the RAAF with a 5th Gen fighter/bomber and gives us the opportunity to re-arm the Fleet Air Arm with fixed wing aircraft, something I think the 'chiefs' (along with Def Min Hill) have been quietly hoping for. Certainly if this all happens we will be in for a major capability enhancement for the RAN and the ADF in general.

Question for AD, Supe, Seantheaussie et al - all of you have expressed some displeasure with regards to the choice of the JSF. What is it in particular worries you so about this new aircraft. From what I've read and can see certainly there are some worrying open ended issues such as final price, and the new aircraft onlyhas one engine. However from what I understand it will be hands down the most capable aircraft in our region (will it not?). With modern stand-off weapons and the highest degree of stealthyness the JSF will not need to be dog fighting with slightly (and this point is debatable) better a2a adversaries....interested? Aapologies in advance for the slight thread high-jack)

Coota
 

cherry

Banned Member
If Australia do decide to purchase a number of STOVL JSF, which branch of the Defence Force will they come under, Airforce or Navy? In addition, besides the 6 MRH-90s for each amphib ship, what other permanently ship based aircraft might we see operating from these ships?
 

knightrider4

Active Member
Coota the F-35 is not an ideal BVR platform as it's radar APG-81 AESA is in comparrison to the F-22 and the Russion SU-27/30 deriatives rather low powered and has a smaller number of elements 1200 compared I think to the F-22 which is around 1500 and so therefore is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to BVR combat with the larger radar array,s carried by the larger aircraft, it,s also a lot slower, is quite poor in kinematic performance, lacks supercruise which the SU27/30 may be provided with in future upgrades does not carry as many AAM's as the Raptor, unless it does so externally in which case it's already limited front sector stealth will be irrelevant. It is essentially optimised as a battlefield inderdictor at which it will be very formidable but is no long range precision strike platform we dont have the tanker numbers and if adding external tanks or stand-off missles to it you degrade the neglible stealth as Ive alredy pointed out. Coupled to the fact we are to get the block 2 aircraft which is without the cool data fusion capabilities and you have at best marginally better capabilities than a hornet.
 

seantheaussie

New Member
Cootamundra said:
Question for AD, Supe, Seantheaussie et al - all of you have expressed some displeasure with regards to the choice of the JSF. What is it in particular worries you so about this new aircraft. From what I've read and can see certainly there are some worrying open ended issues such as final price, and the new aircraft onlyhas one engine. However from what I understand it will be hands down the most capable aircraft in our region (will it not?). With modern stand-off weapons and the highest degree of stealthyness the JSF will not need to be dog fighting with slightly (and this point is debatable) better a2a adversaries....interested? Aapologies in advance for the slight thread high-jack)

Coota
Personally I won't know if I like or dislike the JSF until I know its price, capabilities & in service date. It is very unfortunate that the RAAF loves the JSF without knowing these minor details;)
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Coota, the JSF is supposed to be our only true air combat aircraft and can only carry 4 (2x BVR, 2x WVR) air to air missiles internally. Our current F/A18's carry 8 (6x BVR and 2x WVR) missiles on air ops NOW.

If it carry's bombs or other any other weapons internally it's limited to carrying 2 WVR A2A missiles internally. As Knightrider pointed out if it carry's external weapons it will compromise the aircraft's already limited stealth. In addition there are still serious doubts about it's overall performance, cost and the "level" of stealth we'll actually get...

Another concerning issue is the selection of this aircraft before any real comparison could be made. AIR 6000 was cancelled in effect before the serious analysis that should be conducted when one spends $16 Billion on a new fighter aircraft was concluded...
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31
knightrider4 said:
Coota the F-35 is not an ideal BVR platform as it's radar APG-81 AESA is in comparrison to the F-22 and the Russion SU-27/30 deriatives rather low powered and has a smaller number of elements 1200 compared I think to the F-22 which is around 1500 and so therefore is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to BVR combat with the larger radar array,s carried by the larger aircraft, it,s also a lot slower, is quite poor in kinematic performance, lacks supercruise which the SU27/30 may be provided with in future upgrades does not carry as many AAM's as the Raptor, unless it does so externally in which case it's already limited front sector stealth will be irrelevant. It is essentially optimised as a battlefield inderdictor at which it will be very formidable but is no long range precision strike platform we dont have the tanker numbers and if adding external tanks or stand-off missles to it you degrade the neglible stealth as Ive alredy pointed out. Coupled to the fact we are to get the block 2 aircraft which is without the cool data fusion capabilities and you have at best marginally better capabilities than a hornet.
My understanding is that we will start with the block 2 aircraft for the first lot, all subsequent aircraft will be block 3 with the originals to be upgraded when the block 3 software is ready. Houston indicated this would happen as they wanted to get aircraft in country as soon as possible. :D

In respect to long range strike I agree we lack the tankers and the aircraft does not have the legs of the F111 (it is better than the F111 but if the LHDs are fixed wing air capable platforms this does allow you to move that capabiliy closer to the target shore to maximise the impact. Unless those you are attacking have good satelite or maritime survellance capability there is a good chance you could deliver a nasty surprize. The fact is that unless we are talking about our immediate neigbours any strike launched from Australia will be very long range and would have to deal with the fuel, weapons and range issue (even with the F111).

I Agree the radar size, hence power, is less than the Raptor but the aircraft is stealther that the Su27/30 series by a large margin (the Su27/30 series and the F15 family all have very large RCS) and this is supposed to give it a first shot advantage in BVR combat as the radar is still very capable compared to units currently in service, Raptor excluded (Carlo Kopp and others would disagree but the RAAF are certainly saying this).:coffee
 
Last edited:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Carlo Kopp is a bit of a nut in my opinion, but he points out a number of facts that the RAAF and Government are choosing to overlook. Houston argues that the JSF's radar is capable compared to present radars. Fair enough. We won't be getting operational JSF's for another 10 years at LEAST.

Does Houston honestly think radar technology is the sole preserve of the US? Russian fighters like SU-27/30 series fighters WILL have AESA radars of similar levels of technology with greater aperture size that can ever be fitted to JSF's within 10 years...

Hopefully this and other technology advances don't negate the stealth performance of the JSF cause the JSF's kinematic performance can't be significantly improved and it's already insufficient compared to SU-27/30 series fighters...
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #33
Aussie Digger said:
Carlo Kopp is a bit of a nut in my opinion, but he points out a number of facts that the RAAF and Government are choosing to overlook. Houston argues that the JSF's radar is capable compared to present radars. Fair enough. We won't be getting operational JSF's for another 10 years at LEAST.

Does Houston honestly think radar technology is the sole preserve of the US? Russian fighters like SU-27/30 series fighters WILL have AESA radars of similar levels of technology with greater aperture size that can ever be fitted to JSF's within 10 years...

Hopefully this and other technology advances don't negate the stealth performance of the JSF cause the JSF's kinematic performance can't be significantly improved and it's already insufficient compared to SU-27/30 series fighters...
No argument with any of this. Hopefully the stealth feature and data fusion will keep the aircraft at the forefront. The main reason for having 'some' confidence in this is the fact a number of big players will be relying heavily on this aircraft. I would love to see some F22 in the mix but realise that the cost is currently considered too high.

The best quote I saw from Carlo Kopp was that aircraft will win any war and the role of the army and navy is to provide targetting. So much for history (I think the Balkens exploded that myth), Says it all really.
 

abramsteve

New Member
Is the F-35 likley to be in service whilst the F/A-18's still have some service life left? And is the F-35 incapable of carring external ordance, I read somwhere that the F-22 could and was wondering if they would make the 35's the same
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #35
abramsteve said:
Is the F-35 likley to be in service whilst the F/A-18's still have some service life left? And is the F-35 incapable of carring external ordance, I read somwhere that the F-22 could and was wondering if they would make the 35's the same
The F35 will have external hard points but it negates the advantage of stealth. Not something you want to do unless you have taken out the oppositons AA missiles and air assets.
 

knightrider4

Active Member
What has to be realised is that Australia is asking of the F-35 what the majority of countries looking to purchase are not doing and that is asking the F-35 to be their sole aircraft. In the case of the United States A2A combat capability and cruise missle defence is the domain of the F-22 and the latest incarnations of the F-15. The United Kingdom has the Typhoon for its A2A combat capability, for these countries the F-35 is being purchased exactly what it was designed for and that is battlefield strike with a limited A2A capability. As for stealth the F-35 is X band optimised in the forward sector which will provide low observability against target acquisition radars found on battlefield SAM systems as for the rear sector, stealth is non-existant. As for Houston wanting the F-35 to be part of a networked system, networking is dependant on persistance and with the RAAF's tanking capability this is not going to be acheivable. Houston is also assuming that Australia will be the only country in the region with an AEW& C capability for the forseeable future I find that hard to believe and at any rate in a dinkum fight you will find those wedgetails will be target number one and with radar homing Russian made AAM becoming available the 'AWACS KILLER' they will have to shutdown or be shotdown and an AWACS not be able to operate is not much good. Too many assumptions have been made regarding the capabilities of other countries and I believe too much faith being paid to the superiority of US aircraft and not enough respect paid to the latest Russian offerings, the Cope India exercise being a good example. I think too much has been made of the succsess of the air campains in Iraq and Yugoslavia which in the case of Iraq was against inept opposition and as I understand it the vast majority of the Yugoslav army was intact after the allied air assault ended, true they lost 50 odd aircraft but once again the foe was not exactly top shelf. Thats just my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Cootamundra

New Member
knightrider4 said:
What has to be realised is that Australia is asking of the F-35 what the majority of countries looking to purchase are not doing and that is asking the F-35 to be their sole aircraft. In the case of the United States A2A combat capability and cruise missle defence is the domain of the F-22 and the latest incarnations of the F-15. The United Kingdom has the Typhoon for its A2A combat capability, for these countries the F-35 is being purchased exactly what it was designed for and that is battlefield strike with a limited A2A capability. .
So really the consensus here seems to be that the F-35 is a good aircraft but not a great one for the potential scenarios the RAAF may be called upon to perform in. What I'm finding hard to understand is that we've got a bunch of professional airmen (and women I suppose :)) who seem to be happily moving down the path towards a one combat airforce and NONE of them seem to be worried about it! Our chiefs and the decision makers can't be that wowed by the aircraft to not think laterally about this issue...if that were the case wouldn't they be pushing for the wiz-bang raptor?!

It just doesn't add up....

If the Raptor is too expensive, what would be some credible alternatives if the RAAF/RAN decided that they wanted a mix of F-35's (As and Bs) and another more capable A2A aircraft (think some latest F-15s or Typhoons)...thouhts?

Also can someone explain what is meant by 'data fusion' in the context of the block 3 F-35? THANKS

Coota
 

Cootamundra

New Member
Sorry folks, you can, forget the second part of my last reply as I've found most peoples views on alternatives to the F-35, and, or adjusted mix from an old thread in the aviation section.

===>http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3645&page=3&pp=10

However, I would like to see if someone could expand on the 'how' we got to the point where a single aircraft was 'selected'. From comments by AD amongst others many of you point to the fact that it was a 'political' decision. If so, what was the politics that pushed us to this point? Is it the US alliance?

And while were at it if someone could expand on data fusion for me ;-0

Cheers, Coota
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The data fusion, everyone refers to so glowingly, refers to the aircraft's ability to gain information via it's radar, IRST's, FLIR systems, EWSP and ESM systems and present this info to the pilot in a simple coherent manner. The JSF is simply expected to achieve this ability to a greater degree than other aircraft.

What the JSF proponents choose to overlook, is that EVERY aircraft can do this to varying degree's. As time passes, other aircraft will be upgraded to be increasingly capable of achieving the same effect. We are doing this already with HUG and F-111 upgrades, but the RAAF and Government apparently believe no other Country will...

The political decision in my opinion was based on the (false) truths that the aircraft would be a true Tier 1 stealth combat aircraft that would only cost $30 Million a piece, yet provide tremendous economic benefits and significant work shares for each SDD participating Country. What's the old saying about things that appear too good to be true, usually are? Fits the JSF nicely in my view...
 

knightrider4

Active Member
I think Australia is commited to purchasing a US built Aircraft and that none of the other AIR 6000 contenders were ever seriously looked at and since the Raptor is too expensive and in my opinion not for sale to anyone in the forseeable future then the JSF was chosen.
 
Top