Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suprah

Suprah

New Member
Can anyone enlighten me as to why the LHDs will not accomodate winged aircraft? I know that the LHDs will not be a traditional aircraft carrier (despite retaining the ski jump? :confused: maybe that's for resale value) and the deck will just accomodate helicopters. But why is this?

Is it because the ADF has no winged aircraft that can land and take off from such a platform, including the JSFs? Or is it because jets do not fit into the role that the LHD will perform?
 
Suprah

Suprah

New Member
Todjaeger said:
By capability requirements I do not mean things like processor speed, etc. Rather, the system needs to remain functioning in a useful fashion across a broader range of situations and environments that a civilian system normally needs to.
Click to expand...
This is very true, but can be hard to understand sometimes. Imagine you go and buy a $1500 civilian computer from Dick Smith's, then you are told it needs to:
-Operate after suffering massive physical shocks (i.e explosion or collision).
-Tolerate extreme changes in humidity and temperature changes.
-Run for months, maybe even years at a time without any interruption.
-Continue to operate in the event of a fire, and use of fire control systems (mist/powder).
-Be not affected by roll+pitch of a ship.
-Resist wear and tear induced by crew from continous operation.

And on and on and on... Suddenly your $1500 computer would cost $8000 after mods. But you could throw it off a cliff and it'd probably still work! Now consider that inflation of cost for an IT system for an entire ship..
 
O

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Suprah said:
Can anyone enlighten me as to why the LHDs will not accomodate winged aircraft? I know that the LHDs will not be a traditional aircraft carrier (despite retaining the ski jump? :confused: maybe that's for resale value) and the deck will just accomodate helicopters. But why is this?

Is it because the ADF has no winged aircraft that can land and take off from such a platform, including the JSFs? Or is it because jets do not fit into the role that the LHD will perform?
Click to expand...
Manned jets do not fit into the role that the LHD will perform.
I believe that it would cost quite a sum to redesign the ship without the ramp, + retaining the ramp leaves room for growth with UCAV,s.
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Abraham Gubler said:
The Aegis system itself costs around $550 million per ship and then you have to build a ship big enough to carry it. Which probably adds several hundred or so million to the unit cost. But other combat systems don’t exactly come cheap. A lower level combat management system with radars is still going to cost a few hundred million.
Click to expand...
Wasnt the FMS notification for the Aegis sale for the Hobart class a couple of years ago $750 million per shipset? You arent going to get a ship Hobart size let alone DDG-51 sized (and built to naval spec's) for 250 million.

Edit: Up to $700 Million. http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2008/Australia_08-74.pdf
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
old faithful said:
Manned jets do not fit into the role that the LHD will perform.
I believe that it would cost quite a sum to redesign the ship without the ramp, + retaining the ramp leaves room for growth with UCAV,s.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it was mentioned that on this ship, unlike some of the earlier Ski Jump ships (ie. Invincible) the ski jump on the JCI/Canberra class is part of the structure of the hull rather then superstructure.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Suprah said:
This is very true, but can be hard to understand sometimes. Imagine you go and buy a $1500 civilian computer from Dick Smith's, then you are told it needs to:
-Operate after suffering massive physical shocks (i.e explosion or collision).
-Tolerate extreme changes in humidity and temperature changes.
-Run for months, maybe even years at a time without any interruption.
-Continue to operate in the event of a fire, and use of fire control systems (mist/powder).
-Be not affected by roll+pitch of a ship.
-Resist wear and tear induced by crew from continous operation.

And on and on and on... Suddenly your $1500 computer would cost $8000 after mods. But you could throw it off a cliff and it'd probably still work! Now consider that inflation of cost for an IT system for an entire ship..
Click to expand...
Actually the example I was thinking of came from one of the F-111 upgrade programmes. A relative of mine was on that and had designed an advanced (for the time) radar system to replace the TFR and bombsight used on the F-111A. Unfort his design was not used because the US defence contracting rules required companies that are awarded defence contracts to distribute up to 40% of the contract work out to other competitors, and his company chose to not use their own radar system since they wanted to work on other elements of the upgrade instead.

The end result was that a company called Norden was awarded the contract for the new radar system, and the radar they designed was great, meeting all the requirements except for one minor little detail. It had a tendency to 'crash' and my relative was sent to explain that a restart of the system was not an acceptable solution for an aircraft in flight... Ultimately, the issue was resolved.

-Cheers
 
A

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
StevoJH said:
Wasnt the FMS notification for the Aegis sale for the Hobart class a couple of years ago $750 million per shipset? You arent going to get a ship Hobart size let alone DDG-51 sized (and built to naval spec's) for 250 million.

Edit: Up to $700 Million. http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2008/Australia_08-74.pdf
Click to expand...
That includes a lot of things in addition to the Aegis combat system and radars. Basically all the weaponry, additional sensors and so on as well as a range of training and support services/equipment. There is another DSCA announcement that details these items separately so A-B=C. As to the billion that is what the Spanish govt. is paying for F105. Which is not unreasonable as it is the 5th unit from an established ship yard with low labour rates.
 
S

Sea Toby

New Member
Suprah said:
Can anyone enlighten me as to why the LHDs will not accomodate winged aircraft? I know that the LHDs will not be a traditional aircraft carrier (despite retaining the ski jump? :confused: maybe that's for resale value) and the deck will just accomodate helicopters. But why is this?

Is it because the ADF has no winged aircraft that can land and take off from such a platform, including the JSFs? Or is it because jets do not fit into the role that the LHD will perform?
Click to expand...
While I am sure the LHDs can be converted to a light carrier, much more armament and jet fuel bunkerage will be needed, doing so would reduce her sea lift capacity for troops and cargo considerably. The ADF has missed since the 1970s the sea lift capacity of the transport carrier Sydney more than the light carrier Melbourne. The increased interest for more sea lift relates directly to the lack of sufficient sea lift during the East Timor crisis.
 
A

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
hairyman said:
Is'nt it also the quality of the deck not being suitable for jet aircraft, ie, the heat factor?
Click to expand...
The ship has been designed to operated AV-8Bs and F-35Bs because for the Spanish Navy its their backup aircraft carrier. While their may be issues with the F-35B because it might generate more hot gasses than originally thought it would have no troubles with the Harrier.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Abraham Gubler said:
The ship has been designed to operated AV-8Bs and F-35Bs because for the Spanish Navy its their backup aircraft carrier. While their may be issues with the F-35B because it might generate more hot gasses than originally thought it would have no troubles with the Harrier.
Click to expand...
I thought the F-35b while maybe hotter than its origional target would still be cooler than the Harrier. The harrier is only supported by it exhaust thrust, where as the F-35 has that whopping big fan, which also diffuses the heat from the engine being directed down.

Most ships have a finish that is able to handle either (such as the Korean helo carriers) because its more durable. Operating harriers might mean resurfacing every 3 years, operating helos only may mean it could last 10 years.
 
aussienscale

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
StingrayOZ said:
I thought the F-35b while maybe hotter than its origional target would still be cooler than the Harrier. The harrier is only supported by it exhaust thrust, where as the F-35 has that whopping big fan, which also diffuses the heat from the engine being directed down.

Most ships have a finish that is able to handle either (such as the Korean helo carriers) because its more durable. Operating harriers might mean resurfacing every 3 years, operating helos only may mean it could last 10 years.
Click to expand...
As Abe has already mentioned the JC1/Canberra class are designed with the F35 in mind, so it is not a deck issue, IIRC the issue was a common issue not just related to the above class but also to the US Wasp/Tarawa class LHD's was an actual issue with the deck coatings, although the Harriers do punish the decks it is nothing compared to the F35's thrust and heat output.

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/NAVFAC/INTCRIT/fy10_01.pdf

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_4_150_02.pdf

Can't find the original reference at the moment, but info in this document shows the ground effects, so you can imagine transfering this to deck coatings
 
Last edited:
Suprah

Suprah

New Member
aussienscale said:
Can't find the original reference at the moment, but info in this document shows the ground effects, so you can imagine transfering this to deck coatings
Click to expand...
"F-35B versions of the JSF have integrated power packages (IPP) that point down towards the pavement (the F-35C IPP points upwards and is of no concern for the pavements). The current version of the IPP in those two aircraft generates an exhaust under Burn mode which results in pavement surface temperatures in excess of those generated by the F/A-18 (and B-1) auxiliary power unit (APU). The IPP is always on, and in the Burn mode whenever the aircraft is stopped. This IPP exhaust will result in accelerated decay of both asphalt and concrete: for asphalt it could result in very quick rutting and accelerated oxidation, and for concrete it could result in scaling after a few months or years, depending on exposure time, exposure cycles, wind, precipitation, ambient temperature, etc."

So the F-35C would be OK for deck surfaces as it is the carrier variant? I assume RAAF are not planning to get any F-35C carrier variants..? Despite F35-Cs being 'planned' on the RAAF website.. I really need to read up on these things more I think :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
R

riksavage

Banned Member
koxinga said:
What is the current status of HMAS Choules? To be specific, has she sailed?

I do believe she was supposed to sail off in early October. Might be wrong. But I think she cannot be found at Falmouth anymore.

Our Ship has Sailed!.

Edit:

Webcam image suggest she is still around.
Click to expand...
Probably undergoing sea training for the new crew before she begins the long journey to her new home in Aus. Even better if the RAN crew get the chance to see an RN Bay in full swing going through their loading/unloading drills.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top