Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

I am curious about the Canberra LHDs

There has been speculation that the 2nd should be fitted out as a light carrier using the F-35B or that an additional vessel could be aquired for this purpose. Whilst this will ultimately be a political decision for others, I have a few questions.

Reportedly the Juan Carlos can 30 Harrier IIs in the aircraft carrier mode, using the light vehicles bay as storage zone; I suspect at minimum the Canberras could do like wise.

Just for speculation:

How difficult would it be to develop a dedicated Carrier version based of the Canberra? I assume the amphibious capability could be removed allowing decidated aircraft facilities including the additional munitions storage that would be required in a genuine light carrier?

Would that improve the operation of air assets?

To be a dedicated "light" carrier, I think they would need significant modification. For starters, they would need significantly enhanced bunkerage (increased petrols, oils, lubricants), significant enhancement to the air weapons magazine storage space, purpose built workshops for maintenance of much larger and more complex aircraft and probably a second "elevator" given the amount of "moving around" they'd need to do to employ such a large aircraft on this size ship.

They would need improved air traffic control capability and differing radar (and probably combat management) systems and improved C4I capability and probably an improved self defence capability. Such an important asset would require more than 4x 25mm Typhoon guns to defend itself.

It would probably also necessitate an extra AWD or 2 to provide it with a constant, dedicated escort vessel and a significantly greater manning effort from RAN.

All up, an expensive proposition I'd suggest...

 

[Sea Toby]

I agree. Adding another carrier will blow out the defence budget. Australia would have to buy not only the carrier, but her escorts, and aircraft. The other alternative is to add several Lightning IIs to the LHDs, creating problems with weapons handling and storage, along with more fuel tanks. Any spaces used for the Lightnings would degrade the spaces used for the troops.

I believe Spain intends to use make shift containers for such, not dedicated designed spaces. They have the aircraft in hand already, Australia doesn't. They have the escorts in hand already, Australia doesn't. Spain's makeshift arrangements are for a short term of time, long enough to give their other carrier a proper mid-life refit and upgrade. There is much more to a carrier than a flat flight deck.

Frankly, Australia's greatest assets are its troops. A carrier will be more of a burden than an asset.

 

[PeterM]

I don't think a true light carrier or F-35B are likely

a 3rd LHD is not going to happen. I guess the 2nd Canberra class could be modified/redesigned into a light carrier, but that is very unlikely.

I guess I was wondering about the differences between using a genuine Light Carrier and operating F-35B fron the Hobart class (which was never an ideal option IMHO). I suspected there would be substantial issues involved.

A good indication of the complexities involved with air operations is the RN (who have by far the most experience operating V/STOL aircraft at sea):

They are replacing their three 20,000t lnvincinble class light carries which can operate up to 22 aircraft (primarily Harriers), with 2 60,000t CVF class which will operate 40 aircraft (primarily F-35B). For a modest increase in the number of aircraft, they are doubling the total tonnage.

 

[riksavage]

The UK carriers are perceived as tri-service assets and are designed to carry more than just 40 STOVL aircraft, they must also be capable of hosting Apache, Merlin etc and act as a commando carrier under certain conditions (unlikely event we see both at sea at the same time). Unlike our American cousins we will not have the added benefit of an extensive flotilla of brand-new Marine LHP's with indigenous STOVL. In future, once Ocean is retired or in re-fit the new carriers will probably operate as a single unit plus escorts providing CAP, CAS and lift for accompanying RM assets stowed aboard Bay and Albion class ships. The large tonnage of the UK ships brings a great deal of versatility to the table, allowing the UK Government to park real estate anywhere in the world capable of delivering a heavy punch in support of our strategic interests.

 

[alexsa]

Those in a modern western SSK(or SSG) would be lucky to have a SSN sneak up on them.

..

Are you sure! I would suggest it depends to a large degree which SSK and SSN you are talking about.

The same goes for the 'task force'.

 

[StevoJH]

If Australia Really wanted a Dedicated Aircraft Carrier, the cheapest way to get it would probably to order either a Cavour from the Italian yard that just finished building it, or one of the Indian ones, which are based off it. The Indian one would probably be more suited to australia's needs as it is designed for this general region while the Italian one is designed for operation primarily in the Mediteranian though it can also operate in the North Atlantic.

Modification of the hull of an already designed ship that would also need to up-engined sounds very expensive.

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't think a true light carrier or F-35B are likely

a 3rd LHD is not going to happen. I guess the 2nd Canberra class could be modified/redesigned into a light carrier, but that is very unlikely.

I guess I was wondering about the differences between using a genuine Light Carrier and operating F-35B fron the Hobart class (which was never an ideal option IMHO). I suspected there would be substantial issues involved.

A good indication of the complexities involved with air operations is the RN (who have by far the most experience operating V/STOL aircraft at sea):

They are replacing their three 20,000t lnvincinble class light carries which can operate up to 22 aircraft (primarily Harriers), with 2 60,000t CVF class which will operate 40 aircraft (primarily F-35B). For a modest increase in the number of aircraft, they are doubling the total tonnage.

But there is room for more RAF Lightning IIs if they ever wanted to carry them in a crisis on the CVF. At a later date the British may decide to do so. The point is during the Falklands, the British were only able to carry less than ten more Harriers than normal.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I don't think a true light carrier or F-35B are likely

a 3rd LHD is not going to happen. I guess the 2nd Canberra class could be modified/redesigned into a light carrier, but that is very unlikely.

I guess I was wondering about the differences between using a genuine Light Carrier and operating F-35B from the a Canberra class (which was never an ideal option IMHO). I suspected there would be substantial issues involved.

Half the funding is there for a 3rd one, 3 was the original requirement for 'round the clock capability, so lets not say never just yet.

The Canberra's were designed specifically with STOVL in mind, the Spanish plan to use theirs as an auxiliary carrier. Of course if you want a true light carrier that can sit off someones coast and conduct lengthy offensive air operations a Canberra probably wont cut the mustard. The repair facilities and ammunition/fuel storage and management systems will probably be problematic.

However if you want to provide the brigade group which you are sending into harms way with air cover, comparable to what the USMC provides an MEU, + some CAP capability then the Canberra's will do just fine. The firepower a short squadron of F-35B's can bring to the theater should not be underestimated.

A good indication of the complexities involved with air operations is the RN (who have by far the most experience operating V/STOL aircraft at sea):

They are replacing their three 20,000t lnvincinble class light carries which can operate up to 22 aircraft (primarily Harriers), with 2 60,000t CVF class which will operate 40 aircraft (primarily F-35B). For a modest increase in the number of aircraft, they are doubling the total tonnage.

But remember the fundamental objective has changed. The Invincible class was never meant to be a rock and roll true carrier, conducting shotgun diplomacy, stand alone air campaigns and enforcing the UK's global influence (ala Nimitz). They were primarily designed to act as the centerpiece of cold war ASW groups, with a helo heavy air wing and a few harriers on board to deal with shadowing Bear Foxtrots (and their kin). Therefore they are not particularly well suited for true carrier work. The QE's on the other hand are designed to be true carriers.

Now if anyone thinks the Canberra's will be well suited to act as a stand alone carrier that well they will have larger problems than the Invincible class, (even though technically it would be possible). I dont think thats what the navy wants anyway. We don't have the surface combatants to deploy carrier battle-groups for months on end. If that was the plan, we probably would have built a true carrier + a few more ANZAC's (and manned them with robotics). However using a 3rd LHD as an auxiliary carrier while providing air cover for deployed expeditionary forces (ala USMC) is a different kettle of fish and IMO is what the RAN is after. In that role the Canberra's should do just fine.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Half the funding is there for a 3rd one, 3 was the original requirement for 'round the clock capability, so lets not say never just yet.

But remember the fundamental objective has changed.

The budget objective has clearly changed. The cuts that are happening are substantial - and the peripheral slashing thats happening means that buying further assets would be untenable.

 

[Tasman]

I think Ozzy has painted an accurate picture of what is possible (and IMHO desirable) with the LHDs, especially if a third is ordered. They could provide useful aviation support for deployed troops.

Unfortunately GF has described the reality of what seems likely given the pressure the Australian defence budget is now under. The chance of a third LHD now seems minimal and the possibility of getting a squadron of F-35Bs included in the JSF order is shrinking along with the probable size of the Australian Lightning II order. I think that it is now very unlikely that the RAAF will get the 100 it wants. If its inventory is reduced from what was originally planned the chance of some F-35Bs being included and being made available for deployment from the LHDs will be very low indeed.

Tas

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The budget objective has clearly changed. The cuts that are happening are substantial - and the peripheral slashing thats happening means that buying further assets would be untenable.

Yeah but in what time-frame? When would the point of no return be on the 3rd LHD? 2011~2012? Alot can happen between then and now, we may not even have the current government in office.

 

[swerve]

...They are replacing their three 20,000t lnvincinble class light carries which can operate up to 22 aircraft (primarily Harriers), with 2 60,000t CVF class which will operate 40 aircraft (primarily F-35B). For a modest increase in the number of aircraft, they are doubling the total tonnage.

Up to 22 aircraft, the majority helicopters & the remainder Harriers, vs. 40 (but up to rather more), the majority being F-35B, an aircraft twice the weight of a Harrier . . . . not really a like-for-like comparison.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah but in what time-frame? When would the point of no return be on the 3rd LHD? 2011~2012? Alot can happen between then and now, we may not even have the current government in office.

mate, if you were at Russell you'd understand. Things are not good.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

mate, if you were at Russell you'd understand. Things are not good.

Really? I thought defense had been given a "sacred cow" status? Maybe its being led to slaughter? I knew that stank of spin!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Really? I thought defense had been given a "sacred cow" status?

LOL, publicly they're saying that. The reality is different.

 

[StevoJH]

Up to 22 aircraft, the majority helicopters & the remainder Harriers, vs. 40 (but up to rather more), the majority being F-35B, an aircraft twice the weight of a Harrier . . . . not really a like-for-like comparison.

Didn't the RAF fly down replacement harriers throughout the falklands conflict to keep the carriers at full strength? how many harriers could a QE class carry, considering they are one of the smallest modern jets.

 

[harryriedl]

Up to 22 aircraft, the majority helicopters & the remainder Harriers, vs. 40 (but up to rather more), the majority being F-35B, an aircraft twice the weight of a Harrier . . . . not really a like-for-like comparison.

the various different pictures have shown space for up to 57 F35B deck park and struck below admiralty movement would be a big challenge but the CVF has a potential to carry that plus 3 Helo's. one intersting thing is the sortie generation of the CVF in week is equal to all the sorties of the Falklands war 1400+ sorties of Sea Harrier and GR-3 is equal to the weekly sortie generation of the CVF

The CVF is about the same Size a Forestall Class carrier and it will weigh 75,000 tons[after Refit i think].

in the Falklands the air group consited of 28 Sea harriers in 4 squadrons plus 10 harrier GR-3 [4 were lost]. they were sailed on two converted merchant ships one of which was Atlantic Conveyor.

Lastly to chip in where other people have Invisable class was a carrier by stealth to get fixed wing air by the politicians. They share many for the problems which the Juan Carlos/Cambarra class have

 

[Sea Toby]

As I recall the British sent every one in operational condition left in the UK along with a few Chinook helicopters on the MV Atlantic Conveyor. They were able to fly off all the Harriers and one Chinook, the other Chinooks sunk with the ship. By the time they flew off the AC, the British had a landing pad at San Carlos. I don't recall the exact number of Harriers or Chinooks, I do recall only one Chinook flew off before the exocet hit the ship.

Somewhere I saw a graphic of the Lightning II overlaid with a Harrier, a Falcon, and a Hornet. The Falcon is almost the same dimensions of a Lightning II, the Hornet a bit larger, and the Harrier a bit smaller. But since the Harriers don't fold their wings for parking, they are about the same parking on deck.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yeah but in what time-frame? When would the point of no return be on the 3rd LHD? 2011~2012? Alot can happen between then and now, we may not even have the current government in office.

I think we'd be flat out getting a 3rd RHIB under this Government, let alone an LHD...

 

[swerve]

As I recall the British sent every one in operational condition left in the UK along with a few Chinook helicopters on the MV Atlantic Conveyor. They were able to fly off all the Harriers and one Chinook, the other Chinooks sunk with the ship. By the time they flew off the AC, the British had a landing pad at San Carlos. I don't recall the exact number of Harriers or Chinooks, I do recall only one Chinook flew off before the exocet hit the ship.
....

20 Sea Harriers with the task force. 8 more sent later, plus 10 RAF Harrier GR3. Total 38. That's the entire available Fleet Air Arm Sea Harrier force, but only a small fraction of the RAF Harrier force, which numbered about 70, including a few two-seaters - and with more being delivered during the war.

The 8 Sea Harriers & 6 GR.3 aboard Atlantic Conveyor were flown off 3 days before the landings at San Carlos, onto the carriers, from which they operated. The helicopters hadn't been unloaded because there was nowhere to unload them to, until after the landings. They were beginning to fly them ashore when the ship was attacked, a week after it arrived.

4 more Harrier GR.3 were delivered later, flown down from Ascension, with air-air refuelling, IIRC, to replace losses.