Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[Stampede]

I am with you on this one. The networking capacity of the F-35 combined with the decision to implement CEC seem to make a compelling argument. The aircraft need not directly engage in all cases as they offer and exponential increase in the engagement window of SM6 (which if we trust the hype... is coming). Beyond that the situational awareness they offer with organic air is remarkable.

4 to 6 F-35 on the LHD would be a task force game changer which does not exist with the Harrier.

Conversations re the F35B on Canberra sized ships often centre around the alleged small number of aircraft that these ships can deploy. Comparisons to large fleet carriers come to play and quickly the practicality and use of half a dozen aircraft are questioned.
Fair enough
However maybe the comparison should start with what a naval task force could accomplish with, and also without, a small number of embedded fast air.

When that embedded aircraft is the F35B with all its smarts and what it offers to the fleet, it really is the game changer and the future.
A task force with such an aircraft group is going to dictate events and not be reactionary to the oppositions show of hand.
A task force without embedded Fixed wing aircraft will have limited utility but for under friendly skies.

So half a dozen aircraft certainly has merit and of course these sized ships can carry more than double this number.
At some stage the conversation will go from why will we to why haven't we converted the Canberra's to deploy the F35B
It wont happen today or next year but probably in the mid to late 20's which will be when a certain country will have introduced their fourth or Fifth Carrier.
.


Regards S

 

[SpazSinbad]

The argument is for a small number suitable for FLEET DEFENCE only as has been explicated very well in a few posts above so far. Don't be side tracked by mini aircraft carrier or protecting troops going ashore. Those roles are for the RAAF aircraft which may or may not include the RAAF F-35Bs on LHDs for FLEET DEFENCE. These F-35Bs only need to be embarked for that mission then disembarked ASAP to help out with the other roles needed when based ashore. In this way the impact of a small number of F-35Bs for FLEET DEFENCE is minimal whilst when not needed they are OFF ashore with the RAAF again. Being part of the network, seeing targets ships cannot see will be vital to protect the ADF assets embarked otherwise on our LHDs - IF NECESSARY. Sure sometimes embarked F-35Bs will not be needed and that is fine but I'm certain the ARMY will welcome protection at sea as well as the NAVY. I have not seen one bo peep about how the RAAF will protect LHDs at sea except the RAN saying they will not go places where this protection is needed. How useful is that?

Bear in mind the RAAF will operate these F-35Bs and will do so mostly ashore - one might assume protecting the ARMY and RAAF assets ashore with all that entails. ONLY sometimes they will be useful for FLEET DEFENCE. They may never be needed in reality but will need to exercise this capability. It should be fun for them.

 

[John Fedup]

Can't remember if I asked this before or not, is the RAAF responsible for operating all air assets for the army and navy like the RCAF does for our army and navy?
.

 

[hauritz]

Can't remember if I asked this before or not, is the RAAF responsible for operating all air assets for the army and navy like the RCAF does for our army and navy?
.

There is a Fleet Air Arm but these days it only operates rotary wing aircraft. If Australia were ever to buy something like the F-35B I have no doubt they would be under the control of the airforce.

The airforce on the other hand no longer operates helicopters. The Army and Navy operate their own helicopters. To further confuse issues the navy and airforce share a small number of MRH-90 aircraft.

 

[Todjaeger]

Can't remember if I asked this before or not, is the RAAF responsible for operating all air assets for the army and navy like the RCAF does for our army and navy?
.

In a nutshell, no. The RAAF operates most of the fixed-wing aircraft, with the RAN FAA operating some utility and naval helicopters. Army mostly just operates helicopters as well, though there are (or have been) a few small prop fixed-wings around the size of King Airs.

Conversations re the F35B on Canberra sized ships often centre around the alleged small number of aircraft that these ships can deploy. Comparisons to large fleet carriers come to play and quickly the practicality and use of half a dozen aircraft are questioned.
Fair enough
However maybe the comparison should start with what a naval task force could accomplish with, and also without, a small number of embedded fast air.

When that embedded aircraft is the F35B with all its smarts and what it offers to the fleet, it really is the game changer and the future.
A task force with such an aircraft group is going to dictate events and not be reactionary to the oppositions show of hand.
A task force without embedded Fixed wing aircraft will have limited utility but for under friendly skies.

So half a dozen aircraft certainly has merit and of course these sized ships can carry more than double this number.
At some stage the conversation will go from why will we to why haven't we converted the Canberra's to deploy the F35B
It wont happen today or next year but probably in the mid to late 20's which will be when a certain country will have introduced their fourth or Fifth Carrier.
.


Regards S

TBH, F-35B's or any other fast air is not the first aviation capability I would like to see expanded for or aboard the LHD's if I had any say in the matter. What I would rather see happen first is an aviation capability which extends the sensor footprint of a RAN task force. Due to design limitations, I doubt something like an E-2 Hawkeye, S-2 Tracker/E-1 Tracer or similar fixed-wing aircraft could operate from the LHD's. It might be possible for E or P versions of the V-22 Osprey to be developed which could provide an AEW and/or ASW capability, though I understand the V-22 noise levels might make some of the ASW operations problematic.

For the AEW role, it would be particularly helpful if an aircraft could fly higher than the limit most helicopters have, as well as having radars and workstations which are dedicated to detecting and tracking aerial targets. With the V-22 having a service ceiling about twice that of a Seahawk, the radar horizon would be that much further out and permitting more weapons to be cued while a contact is further away.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Can't remember if I asked this before or not, is the RAAF responsible for operating all air assets for the army and navy like the RCAF does for our army and navy?
.

Replies have missed another factoid: Navy/ARMY helo pilots will now train together at NAS Nowra. The changes at this air station are mind boggling to me [and just for helos! ] Not only are the new training helos EC-135 shared, so to speak, but also the MRH-90 helos are shared with a few (forget how many) rotating down to Nowra (because they will go to sea more often with both Navy/ARMY crews? or just be used in the training role with different landings and such) from ARMY and back again probably after a maintenance cycle (to fix the beginner pilot 'scratches'). There is also a dedicated helo landing training ship SYCAMORE which I gather the ARMY will use to learn how to deck land rather than 'deck crash'. :-(

Joint helicopter school starts training at HMAS Albatross 17 Jan 2018

 

[spoz]

808 Squadron, an FAA Squadron, operates 6 MRS-90s for Naval utility work, and is permanently based at Albatross with flights at sea in amphibs or the AOR - the hangar on the DDGs is not bid enough for them; I don't know about the ANZACs. There are another 40 or so MRS-90 in the ADF, most of which are operated by Army with some in deep maintenance. The concept was that the fleet would be pooled with Navy drawing its six aircraft from the pool so that the tail numbers would rotate over time; although ours are in green/tan camouflage they do have "Navy" on them! Whether 6 will be enough aircraft after Supply and Stalwart commission must be a moot point; I still wonder a bit about not keeping some of the old S-70B-2 stripped of their combat system as utility cabs; it would have required a redo of the avionics (which could probably have been lifted from the USN 60S design) but they still have plenty of airframe life. However that's now water under the bridge.

The Army aircraft are based in Queensland at Oakey or Townsville, and can and do deploy either to NAS Nowra or to one of the LHDs at will; but they normally deploy as troops as a minimum rather than as single aircraft.

All helo pilots of both services now receive their rotary training from the helo school at NAS, which is commissioned as 723 Squadron and is equipped with EC135s. One major driver for this was the recognition that the LHDs would require troops of Army aircraft to embark regularly which meant that basically all Army pilots would need to have done DLPs as part of their advanced training, although they will, of course, still not have as much experience of embarked ops as Navy aircrew do. That in turn lead to the recognition that a dedicated deck was required for deck quals rather than relying just on ad hoc availability of decks from the fleet, and thus to the construction of Sycamore.

 

[aussienscale]

At some stage the conversation will go from why will we to why haven't we converted the Canberra's to deploy the F35B It wont happen today or next year but probably in the mid to late 20's which will be when a certain country will have introduced their fourth or Fifth Carrier.
.
Regards S

The conversion of the Canberra's won't happen for very specific reasons, and they are reasons that go beyond the whole "it will take away from what they were purchased and intended for" or "it would take away key abilities of the ship for amphibious operations".

If we do head down that path we would purchase a dedicated ship to fill that purpose.

Cheers

 

[Stampede]

The conversion of the Canberra's won't happen for very specific reasons, and they are reasons that go beyond the whole "it will take away from what they were purchased and intended for" or "it would take away key abilities of the ship for amphibious operations".

If we do head down that path we would purchase a dedicated ship to fill that purpose.

Cheers

Thanks for your reply and phrasing of the argument.
I'm still in the doable camp so I guess we'll both just watch and see.
A dedicated ship, a third large aircraft carrier,well that would be a hard sell to the public.
However with Geopolitical change to the north, time may cure that sales challenge.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

In a nutshell, no. The RAAF operates most of the fixed-wing aircraft, with the RAN FAA operating some utility and naval helicopters. Army mostly just operates helicopters as well, though there are (or have been) a few small prop fixed-wings around the size of King Airs.



TBH, F-35B's or any other fast air is not the first aviation capability I would like to see expanded for or aboard the LHD's if I had any say in the matter. What I would rather see happen first is an aviation capability which extends the sensor footprint of a RAN task force. Due to design limitations, I doubt something like an E-2 Hawkeye, S-2 Tracker/E-1 Tracer or similar fixed-wing aircraft could operate from the LHD's. It might be possible for E or P versions of the V-22 Osprey to be developed which could provide an AEW and/or ASW capability, though I understand the V-22 noise levels might make some of the ASW operations problematic.

For the AEW role, it would be particularly helpful if an aircraft could fly higher than the limit most helicopters have, as well as having radars and workstations which are dedicated to detecting and tracking aerial targets. With the V-22 having a service ceiling about twice that of a Seahawk, the radar horizon would be that much further out and permitting more weapons to be cued while a contact is further away.

Agree AEW should be part of the mix regardless of the pros and cons of the F35B.
I would suggest the best platform is probably not the best platform, but a practical one using an existing in service helicopter. Either the MRH-90 or Seahawk.
( Sierra )
The RN Fleet air arm have used Sea kings for years and will continue with the Merlin Crowsnest system which is a proven approach off Canberra sized ships.
While maybe not in the same league as fixed wing options it still offers a relatively low risk in service option for some AEW embedded to the task force, which is much better then none.There would be integration costs for our fleet but I still see this as our best option
You work with what you've got!
I'm unsure if there are any UAV options available now. UAV / AEW ?
Suggest V-22 Osprey would be too expensive to establish ourselves even though I can see its attributes.
Maybe one for down the track.

Upshot, we will need some extra helicopters.

Regards S

 

[SpazSinbad]

Aaahh our LHDs will make good MANLY FERRY ShowBoats then:

 

[Todjaeger]

Agree AEW should be part of the mix regardless of the pros and cons of the F35B.
I would suggest the best platform is probably not the best platform, but a practical one using an existing in service helicopter. Either the MRH-90 or Seahawk.
( Sierra )
The RN Fleet air arm have used Sea kings for years and will continue with the Merlin Crowsnest system which is a proven approach off Canberra sized ships.
While maybe not in the same league as fixed wing options it still offers a relatively low risk in service option for some AEW embedded to the task force, which is much better then none.There would be integration costs for our fleet but I still see this as our best option
You work with what you've got!
I'm unsure if there are any UAV options available now. UAV / AEW ?
Suggest V-22 Osprey would be too expensive to establish ourselves even though I can see its attributes.
Maybe one for down the track.

Upshot, we will need some extra helicopters.

Regards S

Helicopter-based AEW&C is certainly better than nothing, but there are distinct limitations to such a capability at present.

AFAIK helicopters do not (at least not normally) have a pressurized cockpit or cabin which puts a limit on the service ceiling, which in turn limits the radar horizon. IIRC the V-22 service ceiling is approx. twice that of the Seahawk as a point of comparison. The other areas which to my mind could make a difference is the number of consoles that can be fitted to permit a radar operator to monitor the contacts, as well as the fuel and fluids payload which would determine loiter time.

In a pinch the MH-60R has been able to detect and monitor up to 30 aerial contacts using the APS-147 radar, but in a threat environment I would be concerned about being able to detect and track a significantly greater number of aerial contacts.

I have heard some talk of possibly having a UAV loitering with a radar array, but there could be a number of issues with developing and implementing such a capability.

 

[Boagrius]

I've always wondered why you couldn't use a tethered balloon/blimp based system ala the (now defunct?) JLENS. Sounds like the implementation would be fraught with challenges but boy would it potentially give you a huge sensor footprint with incredible persistence. No radar consoles ala AEW platforms but you could still feed the sensor data into the shared picture for SA/CEC purposes. An LHD might be an optimal parent vessel for such a system.

Alas I am off in fantasy land now... ;-)

 

[MickB]

I've always wondered why you couldn't use a tethered balloon/blimp based system ala the (now defunct?) JLENS. Sounds like the implementation would be fraught with challenges but boy would it potentially give you a huge sensor footprint with incredible persistence. No radar consoles ala AEW platforms but you could still feed the sensor data into the shared picture for SA/CEC purposes. An LHD might be an optimal parent vessel for such a system.

Alas I am off in fantasy land now... ;-)

As I understand it, one of the benefits of the E2 was its ability to stand of at a distance from the CVN.
This way its emitted radar signal did not point the way directly to the carrier.
A tethered balloon would act as a big signpost over its mothership.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Is AEW such a big issue with land based aircraft?
E7 has a range of 6500 km.
The G550 has a range of 12,500 km.
Both capable of being refueled in the air and having multiple pilots. Persistence over even pretty blue water would seem entirely doable. For Australia that would probably cover most foreseeable deployments.

 

[hauritz]

Is AEW such a big issue with land based aircraft?
E7 has a range of 6500 km.
The G550 has a range of 12,500 km.
Both capable of being refueled in the air and having multiple pilots. Persistence over even pretty blue water would seem entirely doable. For Australia that would probably cover most foreseeable deployments.

Could the Triton UAV be adapted as an AEW platform?

Its ability to stay on station for 30 hours means that you could basically have one of them overhead 24/7

 

[SpazSinbad]

OH well we go off with the gypsies it seems about AEW. One example of the new NIFC-CA USN destroyer / F-35 combo for air and missile defense. We probably can't afford it I guess:

The newest weapon in the US Navy’s arsenal is now under construction 10 May 2018

"...Coupled with ongoing Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program upgrades, the Jack Lucas will also have increased passive capabilities. When used in conjunction with other off-board passive sensors, such as with the F-35 fighter jet, it will be able to triangulate and locate a target without going active and giving away the ship’s position...."

 

[Boagrius]

As I understand it, one of the benefits of the E2 was its ability to stand of at a distance from the CVN.
This way its emitted radar signal did not point the way directly to the carrier.
A tethered balloon would act as a big signpost over its mothership.

Good point. I imagine the tether itself could also pose a potential nuisance to flight operations. See, this is why I'm not quitting my day job!

Perhaps a suitably equipped MALE/HALE UAS would be better in this role as Todjaeger originally pointed out.

 

[spoz]

OH well we go off with the gypsies it seems about AEW. One example of the new NIFC-CA USN destroyer / F-35 combo for air and missile defense. We probably can't afford it I guess:

The newest weapon in the US Navy’s arsenal is now under construction 10 May 2018

I’m not going into the depths of Golly-dom but that capabiliy has existed for some time. What I suspect they might mean is they think they will be able to achieve a solid fire control solutiion using external passive sources.

 

[SpazSinbad]

More to the point was the upgraded SPY radar working with the F-35. Has this been demonstrated before? I want it for the LHD / Fleet Defence F-35B / AWD combo but that is another story eh.