Not forgotten, just that it's highly unlikely it'd have gone very far for so few aircraft without the much larger USMC orders. Or that the RN/RAF could afford them
oldsig
Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD
- Thread starter BOFORS
- Start date
- Status
oldsig
It is far simpler to order a selected design and modify it that it is to select an all new design. Changing the propulsion Turbine from LM2500 to MT30 would be actually a fairly low risk change. Being an Electric pod propulsion, changing to the lower maintenance, more efficient MT30 on a 1:1 basis is fairly straight forward. The MT30 was repackaged to assist with this this change and the LHD has quite large mechanical spaces. You would get more power output, lower maintenance and operational costs, greater range, common turbine across the new generation of RAN ships. Again there is nothing wrong with the lm2500, it wouldn't have to be changed, other than it would likely be changed anyway during a mid life refit. The LM2500 used on the LHD isn't a marine engine variety anyway and the LM2500 used on the AWD is a much older version too so there isn't a whole lot of commonality at the current space in time. The MT30 really doesn't require anything other than observation and fuel during deployment it is extremely low maintenance which is why nearly every navy is transitioning from the good old lm2500. IMO replacing the lm2500 with an engine of a different type in our existing LHD's will probably happen over their life anyway.
As for speed Cavour with its 4 Lm2500 requires 25 tons of fuel per hour at full speed, so with that fuel usage you would have to resupply something with JC1 fuel reserves (1,600t) every 48 hrs, you get 2 days range at full speed. So range and endurance is very short at full speed. Sure you can put more fuel on, but then you have less space and weight for your mission. I expect most ships to cruise around at ~20kts unless there is some specific reason to go fast. Ditching poded electric propulsion would result in less room in your ship as well.
Japan has a specific problem because of the proliferation of diesel electric subs, ships and planes in their region. They don't need long endurance, they need speed. Particularly as a ASW unit, in that area of operation. Japan sees speed as an essential component of their fleet. The RAN doesn't have that problem. 22-24kt will be fine.
JC1 current aircraft carrier format.
A 20 meter lengthened LHD would give you 2+ more jets/helos on the deck, another helo landing spot, a longer landing (for rolling landings) and take off (heavy loads). 4 more helo/Jets in the hanger, a larger lower deck more more vehicles, more space, more room, more stores, more embarked forces. This would bring it closer to the aviation capabilities of a more dedicated platform, but with still the flexibility of the LHD. You would also be within spitting distance to the size of a Wasp or America class, same width, nearly same length, but with a ski jump. And with the familiarity of 3 of a type, also designed to operate along our new AOR and AWD's. With our current LHD operating costs.
I think that level would be pretty significant.
USS Bataan LHD-5 and USS Bonhomme Richard LHD-6 - Each with 15 harriers on deck and ready to launch. So an extended JC1 or Italian aircraft carrier Trieste, would get you to that level of capability.
So does the RAN just want a bigger and more capable ship able to deliver amphibious and aviation capability, or get an additional dedicated aviation ship (with crewing/money from magic land) and make do with its current limitations in amphibious capability.
As for speed Cavour with its 4 Lm2500 requires 25 tons of fuel per hour at full speed, so with that fuel usage you would have to resupply something with JC1 fuel reserves (1,600t) every 48 hrs, you get 2 days range at full speed. So range and endurance is very short at full speed. Sure you can put more fuel on, but then you have less space and weight for your mission. I expect most ships to cruise around at ~20kts unless there is some specific reason to go fast. Ditching poded electric propulsion would result in less room in your ship as well.
Japan has a specific problem because of the proliferation of diesel electric subs, ships and planes in their region. They don't need long endurance, they need speed. Particularly as a ASW unit, in that area of operation. Japan sees speed as an essential component of their fleet. The RAN doesn't have that problem. 22-24kt will be fine.
JC1 current aircraft carrier format.
A 20 meter lengthened LHD would give you 2+ more jets/helos on the deck, another helo landing spot, a longer landing (for rolling landings) and take off (heavy loads). 4 more helo/Jets in the hanger, a larger lower deck more more vehicles, more space, more room, more stores, more embarked forces. This would bring it closer to the aviation capabilities of a more dedicated platform, but with still the flexibility of the LHD. You would also be within spitting distance to the size of a Wasp or America class, same width, nearly same length, but with a ski jump. And with the familiarity of 3 of a type, also designed to operate along our new AOR and AWD's. With our current LHD operating costs.
I think that level would be pretty significant.
USS Bataan LHD-5 and USS Bonhomme Richard LHD-6 - Each with 15 harriers on deck and ready to launch. So an extended JC1 or Italian aircraft carrier Trieste, would get you to that level of capability.
So does the RAN just want a bigger and more capable ship able to deliver amphibious and aviation capability, or get an additional dedicated aviation ship (with crewing/money from magic land) and make do with its current limitations in amphibious capability.
Last edited:
SpazSinbad
Active Member
I would suggest that an SRVL on a narrow deck such as an LHA/LHD is a no go. One of the reasons CVFs are WIDE. This has been explained somewhere here recently. Ships have a cruise speed like any other for usual reasons. Top speed for a STO ship either flat or ski jump can be important but as usual 'it all depends' on length of deck for STO (may include ski jump) and required Max. Take Off Weight plus probably some other less important considerations.
Ships don't usually speed about at maximum speed - they cruise and accelerate as required for STO or VL. The F-35Bs have a lot of extra capability over the old Harrier. The F-35B is able to 'fly backwards at 30 KIAS in STOVL mode 4'. This means for a VL (given other considerations) the ship does not need max speed into wind. That max speed etc. may be needed for a max weight STO though for example - and then back to cruise or whatever fuel saving speed is required.
Ships don't usually speed about at maximum speed - they cruise and accelerate as required for STO or VL. The F-35Bs have a lot of extra capability over the old Harrier. The F-35B is able to 'fly backwards at 30 KIAS in STOVL mode 4'. This means for a VL (given other considerations) the ship does not need max speed into wind. That max speed etc. may be needed for a max weight STO though for example - and then back to cruise or whatever fuel saving speed is required.
Last edited:
I thought I would share this image from the Spanish Navy site.
It shows a Harrier with a parked Bell AB 212 helicopter off the flight deck but next to the Island structure.
A question for the RAN
Have we ever conducted flight operations with helicopters parked in a similar location.
I have seen lined imagery in The Navy magazine of NH90's located there but are not sure if this is a wishful aspiration, or just unrealistic given the helicopters size.
Maybe an option for the Tiger which is quite narrow.
Any ideal as to the clearance from the foul line to the Island structure.
Any feed back is appreciated.
Regards Stampede
It shows a Harrier with a parked Bell AB 212 helicopter off the flight deck but next to the Island structure.
A question for the RAN
Have we ever conducted flight operations with helicopters parked in a similar location.
I have seen lined imagery in The Navy magazine of NH90's located there but are not sure if this is a wishful aspiration, or just unrealistic given the helicopters size.
Maybe an option for the Tiger which is quite narrow.
Any ideal as to the clearance from the foul line to the Island structure.
Any feed back is appreciated.
Regards Stampede
Just thought I would post this while everyone seems to be on a high talking about this subject for the 29th time on the forum in the last 10 years 
https://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/uploads/JCI_en_v2.pdf
This PDF is from 2011, but has some good info on the Navantia Amphibious ships, in particular the JC1 and deck maps for layout during "Carrier" ops etc among a fair stack of other info and comparisons, 85 pages, have fun reading, but worth it.
The pic was from an unknown source and printed IIRC in a story in the Sydney Morning Herald claiming the RAN had a 4 billion dollar secret plan to acquire an aircraft carrier, was from around the same time
Cheers
https://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/uploads/JCI_en_v2.pdf
This PDF is from 2011, but has some good info on the Navantia Amphibious ships, in particular the JC1 and deck maps for layout during "Carrier" ops etc among a fair stack of other info and comparisons, 85 pages, have fun reading, but worth it.
The pic was from an unknown source and printed IIRC in a story in the Sydney Morning Herald claiming the RAN had a 4 billion dollar secret plan to acquire an aircraft carrier, was from around the same time
Cheers
The Bell 212 is a two rotor blade bird.
To place a four rotor helo beside the island, I'm presuming, will require the rotors to be folded.
Unless the aircraft has a folding rotor system then short stay parking would be a nightmare.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
To scare the horses or those not familiar with 'cramming aircraft in an aircraft carrier HANGAR' this graphic from the above PDF is posted, hoping people are offended nevertheless - note these are HARRIERS - not F-35Bs - this would REALLY BE OFFENSIVE and apparently boring for some for the umpteenth time. I like the R21 touch to the graphic.
I like the R21 touch to the graphic.
Last edited:
Takao
The Bunker Group
AH-1 when Tiger is in service? And why are 12 additional ARH more realistic than F-35? Noting this are probably in addition to the helicopters on CANBERRA or ADELAIDE, I'll happily take closer and more responsive air support.
If the RAN ever did find $4 billion down the back of the lounge and wanted a specialised aircraft Carrier I am not sure a modified version of the JC1 would be my first choice. I would be happy with the Australian navy got a third LDH and even bought a few F-35B to fly off them, but I think there are better choices for an actual aircraft carrier.Just thought I would post this while everyone seems to be on a high talking about this subject for the 29th time on the forum in the last 10 years
https://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/uploads/JCI_en_v2.pdf
This PDF is from 2011, but has some good info on the Navantia Amphibious ships, in particular the JC1 and deck maps for layout during "Carrier" ops etc among a fair stack of other info and comparisons, 85 pages, have fun reading, but worth it.
The pic was from an unknown source and printed IIRC in a story in the Sydney Morning Herald claiming the RAN had a 4 billion dollar secret plan to acquire an aircraft carrier, was from around the same time
Cheers
View attachment 46389
SpazSinbad
Active Member
What is the file size limit to upload here for a PDF please? Had thought it was 20Mb however that may be another forum. I know a picture must be less that 2,000 pixels wide, anything else escapes me - I've looked for 'attachment limits' but no joy. Links to two separate PDFs on F-16.net about 10-11Mb each could be posted here instead but thought to amalgamate both into one file if possible (under 20Mb). One PDF is about the RAN LHDs the other is about for/against arguments for F-35Bs on LHDs - both from beginning to recently.
Not sure @SpazSinbad might just be easier to post the links.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
F-35B on Oz LHDs 18dec2018 PRN pp189.pdf http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=29146 (189 page PDF 9.2Mb)
__________________________________________________
OzLHDmaterial18dec2018pp187prn.pdf http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=29136 (187 page PDF 10.7Mb)
A pot pourri of info about the RAN LHDs and arguments for and agin having RAAF F-35Bs on 'em. YMMV. PRN = reprinted pages so that any links/URLs are dead but text remains if needed. This 'reprinting' saves on file size.
__________________________________________________
OzLHDmaterial18dec2018pp187prn.pdf http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=29136 (187 page PDF 10.7Mb)
A pot pourri of info about the RAN LHDs and arguments for and agin having RAAF F-35Bs on 'em. YMMV. PRN = reprinted pages so that any links/URLs are dead but text remains if needed. This 'reprinting' saves on file size.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
The JDF are purchasing 42 of the F35B to base off their 'helicopter destroyers' or whatever they call their 'this is not an aircraft carrier' ships
Japan to buy more U.S.-made stealth jets, radar to counter China, Russia | Reuters
Good opportunity for the ADF to watch and learn.
Japan to buy more U.S.-made stealth jets, radar to counter China, Russia | Reuters
Good opportunity for the ADF to watch and learn.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
I've mentioned already that Lt.Gen. 'Dog' Davis promised to have an RAAF F-35B exchange pilot some years back so that chap should have a good look at LHA Ops (if it came to pass but nothing heard about USMC/RAAF exchange since). See page 53-54 in the 'OzF-35BinOzLHDsPDF'.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Seems to me to be a question for a NEW THREAD title? How is your question relevant to this thread about JCI/Canberra Class LHDs? These are STOVL Jet Aircraft flat decks with ski jumps. Ooops and helos & amphibiousity and all the rest of it: ARMY for example.
t68
Well-Known Member
I agree, if we did get a dedicated carrier it would be best to be STOVL, as per the Spanish plan when in extended maintenance the LHD become the secondary carrier, unless they go Brit and buy 2(tell em his dreamin son)Seems to me to be a question for a NEW THREAD title? How is your question relevant to this thread about JCI/Canberra Class LHDs? These are STOVL Jet Aircraft flat decks with ski jumps. Ooops and helos & amphibiousity and all the rest of it: ARMY for example.
I expect the minimum would have be the size of the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, it was lengthened to accomodate the E2 for added safety from memory
Last edited:
The reason I raised tat question is because the thread itself seems to argue for the LHD to be configured for fixed wing operations does,nt come back to the needed capabilities for the ADF and those priorities ,if a priority is identified for fixed wing capacity for naval assets then what level of capabilities are required to be meaningful ,
To come back to the Canberra class how would the capacity to perform its designed operations would be lost or affected by the adoption of fixed wing aircraft?
To come back to the Canberra class how would the capacity to perform its designed operations would be lost or affected by the adoption of fixed wing aircraft?
Fantasy is not good. It makes the Mods very twitchy and gets them overly excitable.
I think that cost would preclude such a CV first and foremost. Whereas a CV along the STOVL principle is somewhat less costly especially if the intention is to operate say 12 or less fixed wing aircraft off the CV. The capabilities that an E-2D offer can be delivered by other platforms either singularly or in combination if required. The F-35B does offer advantages over the C variant as well.
- Status