Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

Status
Not open for further replies.
Air Support Barge

Following on from the earlier discussion about modular payloads for the Canberra Class, I have worked up the concept of using a barge to provide additional fuel as well as other 'consumables' that the JSF might need. See attached graphic.

The well deck is pretty large, and working on 16m wide, by 69m long and approximately 4m high gives a volume of 4416 cubic metres. Using an online volume convertor tells me this is 1,166,583 US gallons or 971384 UK gallons. A substantial volume of fuel. If even half the space was used for fuel that would be half a million gallons, about double what the class itself carry. This would address the lack of fuel capacity, but obviously doesn't address any of the other problems that may occur with trying to run the JSF of the LHD.

I would be interested in your thoughts, particularly any major reasons why it couldn't be done.




.
 
cdxbow said:
Following on from the earlier discussion about modular payloads for the Canberra Class, I have worked up the concept of using a barge to provide additional fuel as well as other 'consumables' that the JSF might need. See attached graphic.

The well deck is pretty large, and working on 16m wide, by 69m long and approximately 4m high gives a volume of 4416 cubic metres. Using an online volume convertor tells me this is 1,166,583 US gallons or 971384 UK gallons. A substantial volume of fuel. If even half the space was used for fuel that would be half a million gallons, about double what the class itself carry. This would address the lack of fuel capacity, but obviously doesn't address any of the other problems that may occur with trying to run the JSF of the LHD.

I would be interested in your thoughts, particularly any major reasons why it couldn't be done.




.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that when the LHD is in carrier configuration the barge or mexifloat is moved into the well dock and use as a temporary fuel EO storage area?

Might be a good idea with that modular system that Magoo was alluding to for other items like storage for additional spare etc but the liquids storage is best to have more RAS
 
t68 said:
Are you saying that when the LHD is in carrier configuration the barge or mexifloat is moved into the well dock and use as a temporary fuel EO storage area?

Might be a good idea with that modular system that Magoo was alluding to for other items like storage for additional spare etc but the liquids storage is best to have more RAS
Click to expand...

Agreed. Fumes, fire, space would all be factors. Also you wouldn't be able to use the dock.

But the well dock might be a good way to move awkward things like whole engines or large spares etc. Given the size/weight of the engine its another area that current STOVL/CATOBAR carriers haven't really got it completely licked either. There was talk about the US slinging it under V-22 or the USN getting bigger COD planes made. I would assume you could resupply weapons this way as well?

How could you move items from say a LPD/JHSV to a LHD. Would you need a mex or a LCM or could you do it directly one ship to another (I believe the JHSV is trialing a ramp that would be capable of doing this?).
 
cdxbow said:
Following on from the earlier discussion about modular payloads for the Canberra Class, I have worked up the concept of using a barge to provide additional fuel as well as other 'consumables' that the JSF might need. See attached graphic.

The well deck is pretty large, and working on 16m wide, by 69m long and approximately 4m high gives a volume of 4416 cubic metres. Using an online volume convertor tells me this is 1,166,583 US gallons or 971384 UK gallons. A substantial volume of fuel. If even half the space was used for fuel that would be half a million gallons, about double what the class itself carry. This would address the lack of fuel capacity, but obviously doesn't address any of the other problems that may occur with trying to run the JSF of the LHD.

I would be interested in your thoughts, particularly any major reasons why it couldn't be done.




.
Click to expand...
You cannot simply draw stuff as a fix without understanding the arrangment of the vessel and the material issues. Most of us do not have that visibility so it is pointless to postulate on what may work

Looking at the commercial rules .....as an opener,
  • flexible hosing for flammable liquids in a high risk space is a no no.
  • as noted above vent arrangements need to go outside the space as it does have numerous sources of ignition. Otherwise all equipment in the decks will need to explosion proof. This is no small issue as it includes the cargo, deck fans, vehicles and equipment. Don't forget fire rated vents as well.
  • Securing of tanks and barges, no big issue but noting the flexible hose issue (i.e pipes must be steel) nothing can move (not a problem where a container is locked into a deck fitting but will be fun plumbing in barge mounted tanks).
  • Fire protection arrangements over the tanks ...... this is not a small undertaking as these must be fire rated, able to be operated from outside the space, have sufficient knock down and be operable on emergency power.

Then there are the stability calculation issues, pumps, power for pumps, gauging etc etc etc.

This is all hypothetical in any case as we don't know if such mechanism are needed or such capability can be provided by RAS.

As an aside opens source information indicates that the JC1 carries 800 tonnes (about 990 Kilolitres) of JP-5 and has 580 square metres (in four spaces) for ammunition.
 
Last edited:
t68 said:
Might be a good idea with that modular system that Magoo was alluding to for other items like storage for additional spare etc but the liquids storage is best to have more RAS
Click to expand...

Huh what?
 
alexsa said:
As an aside opens source information indicates that the JC1 carries 800 tonnes (about 990 Kilolitres) of JP-5 and has 580 square metres (in four spaces) for ammunition.
Click to expand...

and that's a good example

bunkerage for phatships is not the same as above
 
gf0012-aust said:
and that's a good example

bunkerage for phatships is not the same as above
Click to expand...

That was what I was wondering, if the examples that Alexsa gave above on JC1's JP-5 capacity was directly comparable to the LHD's, obviously they aren't.

The first question I have is, is all fuel storage (for the ships themselves and the aircraft they carry), located in bunkers/tanks in the spaces between the keel and the heavy vehicle deck? It would seem the obviously location, but I'm sure someone will set me straight on that one.

If that is true, does that mean that on the LHD's the 'use or configuration' of fuel bunkers have been modified, as opposed to JC1, in that either more fuel capacity has been allocated for the ships fuel needs (possibly for increased range) and thereby reducing the capacity for JP-5, or does it mean that less tanks were installed during the build?

Just trying to get my head around (if the Government does give approval in the upcoming DCP for F-35B's to be eventually embarked on the LHD's), if there is 'unused' space that could be used for increased fuel capacity if required.

I'm thinking of this as a more permanent, safer and practical solution/modification rather than going down the path of fuel bladders or a module to be placed in the well dock, as some have suggested.
 
With 800 tonnes of fuel and 8 X F-35Bs carrying out 16 sorties a day you would get about a week of fairly intensive operations. This sounds pretty good to me ... or am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
Magoo said:
Huh what?
Click to expand...

In relation to Cxbow and your post about modular systems for the RN, he draw up a system of fuel bunkerage containers and placed them on a barge to gain additional space in the well dock that canbe floated in or out on a as needed basis, myself and others corrected him about using the space for flammables in bulk.

I suggested that we could do something like that in reference to your post on modules storage systems and suggested it might be feasible for extra heavy or oversize equipment on the mexifloat
 
hauritz said:
With 800 tonnes of fuel and 8 X F-35Bs carrying out 16 sorties a day you would get about a week of fairly intensive operations. This sounds pretty good to me ... or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Yes sort of, the Canberras are not identical to JC1 and as they were not intended to operate fixed wing aircraft aviation fuel and magazine stowage were adjusted accordingly. In fact had it not been for cost of redesign the skijump would have been deleted, reduction of the expensive to fabricate and certify JP5 stowage on the other hand was a no brainer.
 
In regards to the proposed replenishment ships, how much Jp-5 can the aegir-18 carry as opposed to Cantabria.

If they are to include f35-b's would it be better to look at the MARS variant at 37,000T?
 
t68 said:
In relation to Cxbow and your post about modular systems for the RN, he draw up a system of fuel bunkerage containers and placed them on a barge to gain additional space in the well dock that canbe floated in or out on a as needed basis, myself and others corrected him about using the space for flammables in bulk
Click to expand...

Engines101 was the user who talked about modular RN support set ups.
 
John Newman said:
Just trying to get my head around (if the Government does give approval in the upcoming DCP for F-35B's to be eventually embarked on the LHD's), if there is 'unused' space that could be used for increased fuel capacity if required.
Click to expand...

not a lot of room to be creative with - so it will be sabre saw time and someone will have to give something up

that always goes down well with "joint owners"
 
RobWilliams said:
Engines101 was the user who talked about modular RN support set ups.
Click to expand...

That's correct, CXBOW used that information and transplanted it onto a barge which when and if Canberra has F35B wanted a modular and portable fuel storage system in the well dock. That's all
 
Engines (Steve's) article in AA should be made compulsory reading before further comment on this thread. Maybe we can publish in a sticky? It would certainly stop some of the ill-informed bs that regularly gets regurgitated here.
 
gf0012-aust said:
not a lot of room to be creative with - so it will be sabre saw time and someone will have to give something up

that always goes down well with "joint owners"
Click to expand...

So who is the instigator behind the whole "lets operate the F-35B off the LHD" idea?

I get the impression that none of the services seem overly keen on it.

Is this an idea from the minds of Abbott and Johnson with no real consultation with the military?
 
Punta74 said:
In regards to the proposed replenishment ships, how much Jp-5 can the aegir-18 carry as opposed to Cantabria.

If they are to include f35-b's would it be better to look at the MARS variant at 37,000T?
Click to expand...

I recently wrote an article on Cantabria and Aegir 26 for ADBR - BMT couldn't provide any detailed info on the Aegir's specific POL capacities because they said the vessels could be "tailored" to the customer's specs.
 
Magoo said:
Basically, yes! :rolleyes:

Neither the RAAF nor Navy are particularly keen on the prospect.
Click to expand...

Unless magic money is provided for a new ship and equipment and facilities I would imagine services would have to sacrifice to get a carrier + planes operational. I don't see it happening unless things dramatically change in the region.

However it is worthwhile before we acquire/spec more ships etc that we look at what we should spec if we want to go down that road. Specing a fleet oiler to be able to replenish carrier at sea would be worthwhile (Japan, Korea, Singapore etc might get one, and we already operate with US forces).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top