Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[Engines101]

Wow, what an interesting discussion. Here are a few disconnected thoughts that might help.

Given the realities of Australian defence budgets (like almost all Western countries just now) I'd suggest that the question the ADF staffs will have to answer is:

"Can we get any useful F-35B capability off the two LHDs that we have?'

Honestly, I think that talk of extra or different ships is, at this stage, slightly wishful thinking. I certainly wouldn't advocate trying to 'convert' either of these ships beyond the minimum work required to accept F-35B.

Fuel stowage - clearly a potentially tough one, and I don't know what a 'Canberra' holds. However, I'd offer the thought that realistically, any extra aviation fuel stowage would have to be located in a proper set of tanks down deep in the hull. (the only possible alternative that might work would be some form of 'containerised fuel farm' with its own integral firefighting installation. I'd also offer the thought that any carrier operating fixed wing aircraft needs a RAS about every three to four days, whatever the fuel stowages available.

My final thought - the idea of putting a ship into heavy air ops, then pulling it out after a month to put a fresh crew in would be highly inadvisable. Air ops at high tempo demand worked up teams in all areas of the ship, from weapon preparation to intel, air ops planning, engineers, deck crew and not least aircrew fit and able to fly at night in poor conditions.

One month is actually just about the minimum a ship needs to get its collective act together, in my view. Swapping out crews at that point would reset the 'experience' clock and send the risk factors off the scale. My view (and happy for others to disagree) is that a worked up smallish STOVL ship like 'Canberra' should be able to sustain day and night air operations for six days a week for at least three months. That's what the taxpayer's paid for.

Finally, my guess at maximum F-35B load out for a 'Canberra. would be about 9 to 12. I'd need more detail on hangar sizes and deck layouts to go any firmer than that. I'd also suggest that a minimum load out, to get value from the logistics footprint and personnel requirements, would be around 5.

But I'd suggest that 5 F-35Bs on a ship that could be 'poised' in the vicinity of a deteriorating situation would be an absolute godsend to any politician. That would be a potentially very effective 'first precision strike' capability that would carry considerable diplomatic clout.

Thoughts?

Best Regards as ever to all,

Engines101

 

[ASSAIL]

Wow, what an interesting discussion. Here are a few disconnected thoughts that might help.

Given the realities of Australian defence budgets (like almost all Western countries just now) I'd suggest that the question the ADF staffs will have to answer is:

"Can we get any useful F-35B capability off the two LHDs that we have?'

Honestly, I think that talk of extra or different ships is, at this stage, slightly wishful thinking. I certainly wouldn't advocate trying to 'convert' either of these ships beyond the minimum work required to accept F-35B.

Fuel stowage - clearly a potentially tough one, and I don't know what a 'Canberra' holds. However, I'd offer the thought that realistically, any extra aviation fuel stowage would have to be located in a proper set of tanks down deep in the hull. (the only possible alternative that might work would be some form of 'containerised fuel farm' with its own integral firefighting installation. I'd also offer the thought that any carrier operating fixed wing aircraft needs a RAS about every three to four days, whatever the fuel stowages available.

My final thought - the idea of putting a ship into heavy air ops, then pulling it out after a month to put a fresh crew in would be highly inadvisable. Air ops at high tempo demand worked up teams in all areas of the ship, from weapon preparation to intel, air ops planning, engineers, deck crew and not least aircrew fit and able to fly at night in poor conditions.

One month is actually just about the minimum a ship needs to get its collective act together, in my view. Swapping out crews at that point would reset the 'experience' clock and send the risk factors off the scale. My view (and happy for others to disagree) is that a worked up smallish STOVL ship like 'Canberra' should be able to sustain day and night air operations for six days a week for at least three months. That's what the taxpayer's paid for.

Finally, my guess at maximum F-35B load out for a 'Canberra. would be about 9 to 12. I'd need more detail on hangar sizes and deck layouts to go any firmer than that. I'd also suggest that a minimum load out, to get value from the logistics footprint and personnel requirements, would be around 5.

But I'd suggest that 5 F-35Bs on a ship that could be 'poised' in the vicinity of a deteriorating situation would be an absolute godsend to any politician. That would be a potentially very effective 'first precision strike' capability that would carry considerable diplomatic clout.

Thoughts?

Best Regards as ever to all,

Engines101

Totally agree and have posted along the same but less knowledgeable lines earlier.
Many seem worried about compromising the amphibian role by adding F-35 but I think this is unfounded. The RAN LHD's were primarily conceived to operate independently in a low threat regional stoush or as a contributing force with allies.
In both these cases F-35's are probably not needed however, the planned scenarios will not always be the ones the government has to respond to (over the long life of the ships). Therefore flexibility is paramount and if the ships had to mount an operation against a well armed opponent without US support or if they were to be used by the government as a tool for foreign policy to lend weight to a situation then embarked Lightnings would be indispensable to a bit of sabre rattling.
I have been in CVL Melbourne with 6 x A4s, all helos and no helos (apart from Pedro) in a variety of circumstances and have seen that flexibility at work. Its the secret to longevity as the RN proved with the thru deck "cruisers"

 

[Bonza]

I feel the same way, as Cavour has a secondary sealift capacity it might be better than the 3rd LHD if we are going to have a serious fixed wing strike capacity.

I have often wondered if Australia was better of on similar deal like the Invincible with a joint combat aircraft for both RAN/RAAF as we had the carrier capable legacy hornets a reduced amount of fixed wing aircraft to 54 enough to fill out two carrier and replaced the F111 with a true LRSB 24xB52/B1B, seriously were we only ever going to do expeditionary campaigns, has the RAAF ever intercepted a military fast jet in Australian airspace?

This is rapidly turning into fantasy again. Two dozen Lancers to go with your pair of CATOBAR-capable aircraft carriers? Seriously?

 

[Magoo]

The F-15 idea was a spurious one at best, and would never have 'sailed' politically! The Sea Harrier idea held a little more water, but not much.

The F-15 was dropped from the list of possible Mirage replacements early in the first round of shortlisting because in the late 1970s it had little or no air-to-ground capability, and it was deemed to be too high-end of a fighter for our requirements - much like the F-22 is today.

The first shortlist comprised the F/A-18A, the F-18L, the F-16A and the Mirage 2000, with the F-18L and Mirage 2000 being dropped in the second round.

A Sea Harrier/Invincible combination was briefly looked at in 1981/82 as the UK sought to down-size and the Melbourne approached its paying off, but when the Falklands campaign happened the offer was withdrawn. I doubt it would have proceeded anyway.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

I guess the main issue is that the JC1 is designed for 55 days of operation with harriers (and not that many harriers). 55 Days would be at a fairly low level of intensity. Given that F-35B's suck fuel at twice (approximately) the rate of a harrier, supporting 55 independent days is more likely going to be ~25 days for fuel for the F-35. I would assume a F-35 however would be more accurate and most likely require less weapons than 55 days of harrier operations so with RAS we might be able to operate for 60 or 70 days (just guesses here) assuming the F-35 can be more effective than a harrier and is 20% more efficient with its weapon load. Certainly comparing the harrier and the F-35, they are planes of two different centuries.

My argument is with 3x LHD you could surge 2xLHD to act as a pure carriers, and between them, you would have twice the magazines, twice the fuel load, twice the deck and twice the hanger space. While they aren't perfect as carriers, they are huge ships with lots of open flexible space. Anything that requires more than two requires a super carrier.

When not surging 2, 1 would provide useful capability. When operating 2xLHD as amphibs, between them you could keep useful airwing much like the USMC does.

3 LHD also greatly enhances the amphibious capability of the ADF to approximately where it needs to be. While I don't think we will get another LPD (we have asked the UK several times and its a definite no) we will most likely augment our capabilities with short lease of HSV, smaller amphibious ships (6), short lease Roro, and OCV/OPV. Other options are utilise allied assets like NZ strategic lift, or Singapore's, both of which could fill a LPD type role (with support).

But no one can really fill the capability of a JC1/Canberra in the region other than the USMC.

While its expensive, it will actually save money (in some aspects) as we won't be hitting the two LHD hulls we have as hard, we will be able to give timely maintenance and adequate training. Have we already forgotten what happened to the Kanimbla class ships?

At this stage running F-35 air ops is a bit of a dream. Until there is more data on the F-35B running of JC1 (which we will have min the next few years) its all theoretical stuff.

What is not a dream is Fijis elections and it returning to some sort of democracy, PNG near split last elections with two competing election winners and deepening tensions and rebel states, the retirement of Timors older leaders and some interesting new faces and disunity. We then have half a dozen other pacific island nations (or fractions) at risk. And this is as good as it gets natural or economic disaster and things are going to unravel quickly.

East Timors Prime Minster is expected (Gusmao) to resign this weekend and is being demanded by the President. The finance minster has been arrested. There is even talk about arresting Gusmao.

If I was in government making decisions about the future right now, I would be plugging everything I could into amphibious capability. Its under that back drop I would be looking for a 3rd LHD for the future around the 2020 mark.

 

[Volkodav]

The F-15 idea was a spurious one at best, and would never have 'sailed' politically! The Sea Harrier idea held a little more water, but not much.

The F-15 was dropped from the list of possible Mirage replacements early in the first round of shortlisting because in the late 1970s it had little or no air-to-ground capability, and it was deemed to be too high-end of a fighter for our requirements - much like the F-22 is today.

The first shortlist comprised the F/A-18A, the F-18L, the F-16A and the Mirage 2000, with the F-18L and Mirage 2000 being dropped in the second round.

A Sea Harrier/Invincible combination was briefly looked at in 1981/82 as the UK sought to down-size and the Melbourne approached its paying off, but when the Falklands campaign happened the offer was withdrawn. I doubt it would have proceeded anyway.

Cheers

I was under the impression the F-15 was still being considered after the F-18L and Mirage 2000 had been dropped and the deciding factors against it in the end were tat it was seen as being at the end of its development and cost. Prior to this it is my understanding that the RAAF looked at a batch of 50 Eagles in the mid 70s. This is based on books, magazine articles and news items read over the years ( and perhaps miss-remembered).

As a youth I was socially and sportingly involved with a stack of serving RAAFies and as an adult working in the defence industry involved with a lot of ex RAAFies which is where I got the anecdotal information from. I really do appreciate when people are able to fill in gaps and correct any misapprehensions I may have in my understanding of past events.

 

[Volkodav]

Wow, what an interesting discussion. Here are a few disconnected thoughts that might help.

Given the realities of Australian defence budgets (like almost all Western countries just now) I'd suggest that the question the ADF staffs will have to answer is:

"Can we get any useful F-35B capability off the two LHDs that we have?'

Honestly, I think that talk of extra or different ships is, at this stage, slightly wishful thinking. I certainly wouldn't advocate trying to 'convert' either of these ships beyond the minimum work required to accept F-35B.

Fuel stowage - clearly a potentially tough one, and I don't know what a 'Canberra' holds. However, I'd offer the thought that realistically, any extra aviation fuel stowage would have to be located in a proper set of tanks down deep in the hull. (the only possible alternative that might work would be some form of 'containerised fuel farm' with its own integral firefighting installation. I'd also offer the thought that any carrier operating fixed wing aircraft needs a RAS about every three to four days, whatever the fuel stowages available.

My final thought - the idea of putting a ship into heavy air ops, then pulling it out after a month to put a fresh crew in would be highly inadvisable. Air ops at high tempo demand worked up teams in all areas of the ship, from weapon preparation to intel, air ops planning, engineers, deck crew and not least aircrew fit and able to fly at night in poor conditions.

One month is actually just about the minimum a ship needs to get its collective act together, in my view. Swapping out crews at that point would reset the 'experience' clock and send the risk factors off the scale. My view (and happy for others to disagree) is that a worked up smallish STOVL ship like 'Canberra' should be able to sustain day and night air operations for six days a week for at least three months. That's what the taxpayer's paid for.

Finally, my guess at maximum F-35B load out for a 'Canberra. would be about 9 to 12. I'd need more detail on hangar sizes and deck layouts to go any firmer than that. I'd also suggest that a minimum load out, to get value from the logistics footprint and personnel requirements, would be around 5.

But I'd suggest that 5 F-35Bs on a ship that could be 'poised' in the vicinity of a deteriorating situation would be an absolute godsend to any politician. That would be a potentially very effective 'first precision strike' capability that would carry considerable diplomatic clout.

Thoughts?

Best Regards as ever to all,

Engines101

Thanks again Engines for yet another superb background piece, this is really helpful filling in gaps of what should be vs what is not possible. Your posts have alleviated a lot of my concerns over the adaption of the LHD to a limited carrier role.

 

[Volkodav]

Totally agree and have posted along the same but less knowledgeable lines earlier.
Many seem worried about compromising the amphibian role by adding F-35 but I think this is unfounded. The RAN LHD's were primarily conceived to operate independently in a low threat regional stoush or as a contributing force with allies.
In both these cases F-35's are probably not needed however, the planned scenarios will not always be the ones the government has to respond to (over the long life of the ships). Therefore flexibility is paramount and if the ships had to mount an operation against a well armed opponent without US support or if they were to be used by the government as a tool for foreign policy to lend weight to a situation then embarked Lightnings would be indispensable to a bit of sabre rattling.
I have been in CVL Melbourne with 6 x A4s, all helos and no helos (apart from Pedro) in a variety of circumstances and have seen that flexibility at work. Its the secret to longevity as the RN proved with the thru deck "cruisers"

Ah I see now, finally I turn the page and realise what you have been talking about. I was fixated on the LHDs needing to conduct or be able to conduct both roles simultaneously which was not what you were suggesting at all. Peace time and low level ops amphibious op are fine but as the platforms were never intended to conduct opposed or high level ops it actually adds value giving them a high end carrier role where they can support the frigate force beyond the horizon.

I still wouldn't mind it if a couple of our future frigates / destoyers just happened to displace more than 20000 tonnes, had through decks and skijumps.

 

[Magoo]

I was under the impression the F-15 was still being considered after the F-18L and Mirage 2000 had been dropped and the deciding factors against it in the end were tat it was seen as being at the end of its development and cost. Prior to this it is my understanding that the RAAF looked at a batch of 50 Eagles in the mid 70s. This is based on books, magazine articles and news items read over the years ( and perhaps miss-remembered).

As a youth I was socially and sportingly involved with a stack of serving RAAFies and as an adult working in the defence industry involved with a lot of ex RAAFies which is where I got the anecdotal information from. I really do appreciate when people are able to fill in gaps and correct any misapprehensions I may have in my understanding of past events.

I think your memory is playing tricks, or the RAAFies you hung around weren't well-informed. I have researched this extensively and have interviewed the RAAF's two test pilots who did the fly offs in the late 70s and early 80s.

https://shop.australianaviation.com.au/shop/browse.54763

Cheers

 

[t68]

This is rapidly turning into fantasy again. Two dozen Lancers to go with your pair of CATOBAR-capable aircraft carriers? Seriously?

Not fantasy land just an alternate concept in history, RAAF wanted to purchase the Avro Vulcan Strategic bomber from the UK in the 1950’s only reason we didn’t was because Menzies cut the defence budget at the time and as an alternative we got as part of the Medium Bomber Project the Canberra Bomber which we acquired 58 examples of, if the RAAF had received their preferred aircraft (24-36 Avro Vulcan) at the time come the late 1970’s early 80’s B1 Lancer would have been the only game in town as a replacement project.

When we received F-111 the original idea was that we would have 48 aircraft in total but the delays and price increase negated any chance of a follow on order at the time. Also back in 92 when Keating was PM wanted to buy an additional 52x F-111G, Air Marshal Ray Funnell RAAF eventually acquired another eighteen aircraft and additional spares. The F-111Gs were 30 years old at that point and not easily compatible with the F-111Cs, but the decision helped to keep the capability in service to 2010.

A deal was struck about the delayed aircraft the RAAF received and leased from the USAF 24x F-4E Phantoms which the RAAF wanted to keep when the F-111 finally turned up, not so farfetched when put into context of the preferred system that the RAAF wanted, B1 Lancer would just have been a continuation of the status quo, only reason we have not replaced the F-111 with something similar as there was no immediate aircraft that would do the same job when the FB-22 died on the drawing boards.

 

[Bonza]

Perhaps so but I find it hard to take the idea of B-1Bs in RAAF colours seriously. As you say it may be an alternate concept in history - that doesn't stop it from being fantasy. I could write a scenario where the Nazis were the first to produce an atomic bomb and delivered it from their "atmosphere-skipping" extremely high altitude bomber design. This is alternate history, but from all that's known, it's also fantasy.

You're also assuming that the Vulcan replacement would have been "like for like" - there's a very real possibility that the replacement would be downsized significantly, so rather than a strategic bomber you end up with a reasonably long ranged interdiction aircraft... possibly the F-111, ironically enough...

If everyone's fine with discussion of alternate history to this extent then go for it I guess. I just want to make sure discussions are kept intelligent and coherent.

 

[ASSAIL]

I just want the thread to stay on track as an LHD one including probable embarked aircraft. Last time I checked B1B's and F111's couldn't land on them, Australia will only spend 2% of GDP well into the future and Spain will also remain fiscally challenged for a decade to come at least.
In short, we won't be getting a third f/w platform within a decade and if we ever get F35B's they will only be deployed to the current ships or their replacements.

 

[PeterM]

This discussion is quite interesting.

I have some questions for people better informed than myself.

If the RAN/RAAF does acquire a F-35B capability to operate from the LHDs, is it likely that a helicopter based AEW capability is either warranted or desirable?

My understanding is the UK are developing an AEW pod to operate from the Merlin HM2 with an expected IOC of 2019.

Would Merlin HM2 aircraft with this AEW pod be a viable option for the RAN? Could this pod be fitted to the MRH90?

 

[t68]

Perhaps so but I find it hard to take the idea of B-1Bs in RAAF colours seriously. As you say it may be an alternate concept in history - that doesn't stop it from being fantasy. I could write a scenario where the Nazis were the first to produce an atomic bomb and delivered it from their "atmosphere-skipping" extremely high altitude bomber design. This is alternate history, but from all that's known, it's also fantasy.

You're also assuming that the Vulcan replacement would have been "like for like" - there's a very real possibility that the replacement would be downsized significantly, so rather than a strategic bomber you end up with a reasonably long ranged interdiction aircraft... possibly the F-111, ironically enough...

If everyone's fine with discussion of alternate history to this extent then go for it I guess. I just want to make sure discussions are kept intelligent and coherent.

Sorry to put you so up in arms about what I said about Joint Combat Aircraft between RAN/RAAF and highlighting the RAAF is expeditionary in nature and also area where the RAAF saw the need for long range strategic strike in the early 1950’s.

It seems to me that unless one is part of the Defence Professional/Analyst group and you bring up an alternate thought through the vagaries of the varied discussions we must be living in a fantasy. All I raised was an alternative to what we have now and how would that effect the overall composition of the RAN/RAAF. Nothing much different from members in Defence Professional/Analyst group.

 

[t68]

I just want the thread to stay on track as an LHD one including probable embarked aircraft. Last time I checked B1B's and F111's couldn't land on them, Australia will only spend 2% of GDP well into the future and Spain will also remain fiscally challenged for a decade to come at least.
In short, we won't be getting a third f/w platform within a decade and if we ever get F35B's they will only be deployed to the current ships or their replacements.

agreed going off topic, ill go over to the naughty corner

 

[Volkodav]

This discussion is quite interesting.

I have some questions for people better informed than myself.

If the RAN/RAAF does acquire a F-35B capability to operate from the LHDs, is it likely that a helicopter based AEW capability is either warranted or desirable?

My understanding is the UK are developing an AEW pod to operate from the Merlin HM2 with an expected IOC of 2019.

Would Merlin HM2 aircraft with this AEW pod be a viable option for the RAN? Could this pod be fitted to the MRH90?

All I can say is I hope we do obtain a helo based AEW capability and as I understand it the option selected by Italy and on offer to the UK based on the F-35 radar, modular in nature and can be fitted to either the MRH90, Romeo and / or Sierra.

 

[Bonza]

Sorry to put you so up in arms about what I said about Joint Combat Aircraft between RAN/RAAF and highlighting the RAAF is expeditionary in nature and also area where the RAAF saw the need for long range strategic strike in the early 1950’s.

It seems to me that unless one is part of the Defence Professional/Analyst group and you bring up an alternate thought through the vagaries of the varied discussions we must be living in a fantasy. All I raised was an alternative to what we have now and how would that effect the overall composition of the RAN/RAAF. Nothing much different from members in Defence Professional/Analyst group.

Just to repeat myself so you understand:

If everyone's fine with discussion of alternate history to this extent then go for it I guess. I just want to make sure discussions are kept intelligent and coherent.

Nothing to do with the status of various members and who is and is not a defence professional. I apologise if it came across that way.

But just for the record, given that you've brought up this perceived difference in treatment, maybe we could throw the possibility of operating B-1Bs in the RAAF over to the DefPros, and see what they think? If it's not much different to their suggestions then big deal, right?

Alternatively we could stop derailing the thread (and I know you just addressed this in a post so this isn't a rebuke) and move on. And as I said, if there's a perceived difference in treatment between people who do this for a living and people who do it as a hobby (and I'd point out that I myself are in the latter group) then my apologies for the miscommunication.

 

[PeterM]

U.K. Mulls Sea King Successors | AWIN content from Aviation Week

All I can say is I hope we do obtain a help based AEW capability and as I understand it the option selected by Italy and on offer to the UK based on the F-35 radar, modular in nature and can be fitted to either the MRH90, Romeo and / or Sierra.

It seems the Italians use a different system which is based on the EH101.

I found some info on the uk options including the F35 radars (see link above)

 

[alexsa]

All I can say is I hope we do obtain a help based AEW capability and as I understand it the option selected by Italy and on offer to the UK based on the F-35 radar, modular in nature and can be fitted to either the MRH90, Romeo and / or Sierra.

I quite agree. Even is F35B never find their way into the ORBAT the AEW option provides a great capability for the RAN ....... particularly where it can be fitted to existing airframes as required.

 

[PeterM]

TheVigilancive is Lockheed Martin's Vigilance system. This uses a pair of*Northrop GrummanAN/APG-81 active, electronically scanned array radars from the*F-35*Lightning II, fitted in pods, one on each side of the aircraft. Each array is capable of providing 120 deg. of coverage. To achieve the full 180 deg., the radar will be mounted on a 30-deg. pintle.

Lockheed Martin say a production pod would weigh roughly the same as an air-launched torpedo and could be installed and removed from the aircraft in less than 2 hr. The company also asserts the system would be “plug and play” given its involvement in the development of the Merlin Mk2's mission system.*

Could the Vigilance fit adequately on the MRH90? I believe it is smaller than the Merlin.

Is there much risk with integration with another airframe?