Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[cdxbow]

If the Canberra class were to be used for the JSF could the well deck be used to provide stores for additional aviation fuel, munitions and aircraft parts?

Obviously you loose the well deck functionality, but if the main limitation on the Canberra operating the JSF is related to limited storage of aviation fuel etc, then this could be away around it. A special JSF support module could be developed that carries the needful and is simply floated in. The well deck is 69.3-by-16.8-metre, so it's pretty big.

 

[rjtjrt]

There is an interesting presentation to RAeS in this link.

Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | Carrier countdown

It mentions the UK dealing with themal issues, and also how BAe can simulate F-35 ops on any carrier if they are provided with the required ship info.

 

[Engines101]

First, thanks to the kind (but wholly undeserved) comments earlier in the thread. Keeping up with the quality of the posts here will be a challenge for me, please let me know when I fail to do so.

cdxbow raises a good point about containerised (or 'modular') support. The RN have actually developed a very simple but effective system called 'MS' (modular support) whereby all the specialist equipment, tools and some of the stores for aircraft embarkations are loaded up ashore into special containers. These are then brought on board, clipped on to special bulkhead attachments, roller blind doors pulled up and the kit is then ready for use. Might be worth a look by the RAN/ADF. The concept was successfully used by the UK's Joint Force Harrier.

Weapons and fuel would be more problematic, as safety rules (and these are really sensible, copper-bottomed, keep you alive type rules, not 'health and safety gone mad' rules) would rule out putting that sort of stuff in the well deck in a module, unless it came with some good fire fighting systems (although this could be possible). Many modern munitions are what are called 'insensitive'. This doesn't mean they're callous or cruel, it means that they are less liable to go off in a fire or if subjected to blast.

What might be noted is that the F-35B has been required to work within a very tight 'logistics footprint', driven by the UK and the L class. The figures I've found call for it to be 'less than or equal to 21,000 cu ft, 136 short tons). This, I think, is for an 8 aircraft deployment.

That's not trivial, but it includes all the ground equipment, spares for 30 days, and tools including weapon loading kit and role equipment).

I'd think that the aviation fuel capacity of the Canberra would probably be a key aspect to be studied against forecast consumption rates. (The Invincible class weren't great in this respect, by the way).

Putting F-35B on the 'Canberra' class would not be a trivial exercise - I apologise if anyone thought I inferred that. However, I'd suggest that it's worth a close (and informed) examination as an option. Put it this way, if a fleet had an option between using Tiger helicopters or F-35Bs to apply short notice military effect from the air in support of combat forces a long way from home, I'd respectfully suggest that the F-35B would be a little more capable.

Of course, like any military option, there would be pros and cons, which only the ADF can make. If I could make one more suggestion - get some of the ex Sea Harrier drivers in Australia to support any study. My experience was that they were all hard headed, utterly professional people, and they have absolutely unique experience in STOVL ops from 'smaller' ships.

Hope this stuff is helping,

Engines101

 

[StobieWan]

Great post - didn't realise the RN had done so much work in modular support configs!

 

[Engines101]

StobieWan,

Happy to provide more details if you are interested. It's one of those areas where you look at the solution and think 'now why couldn't I have thought of that?'.

Best regards

Engines101

 

[StobieWan]

StobieWan,

Happy to provide more details if you are interested. It's one of those areas where you look at the solution and think 'now why couldn't I have thought of that?'.

Best regards

Engines101

It'd make my day if you'd stick a post in the RN thread on whatever you care to summarise in the open - I'd love to hear more as the logistics and practicalities of these things are oft overlooked in the 'tinternet wars of willy measuring competitions.

 

[Engines101]

It'd make my day if you'd stick a post in the RN thread on whatever you care to summarise in the open - I'd love to hear more as the logistics and practicalities of these things are oft overlooked in the 'tinternet wars of willy measuring competitions.

Stobiewan,

Info posted on the RN thread as requested.

Best regards

Engines101

 

[aussienscale]

cdxbow raises a good point about containerised (or 'modular') support. The RN have actually developed a very simple but effective system called 'MS' (modular support) whereby all the specialist equipment, tools and some of the stores for aircraft embarkations are loaded up ashore into special containers. These are then brought on board, clipped on to special bulkhead attachments, roller blind doors pulled up and the kit is then ready for use. Might be worth a look by the RAN/ADF. The concept was successfully used by the UK's Joint Force Harrier.

Weapons and fuel would be more problematic, as safety rules (and these are really sensible, copper-bottomed, keep you alive type rules, not 'health and safety gone mad' rules) would rule out putting that sort of stuff in the well deck in a module, unless it came with some good fire fighting systems (although this could be possible). Many modern munitions are what are called 'insensitive'. This doesn't mean they're callous or cruel, it means that they are less liable to go off in a fire or if subjected to blast.

I was not aware of the effort put into modular support in that respect to the RN, look forward to catching up on the RN thread, and will post and questions there.

As mentioned weapons, and more importantly fuel are a real issue and as you have mentioned no real easy solutions, it it not as easy and linking up containerised fuel bunkerage and plumbing it up.

Just a thought, thinking out of the box, the LHD's have very large void areas that are flooded with saltwater to lower and aft of the ships and flood the dock, if a LHD was to be used in a more fixed wing role for a particular mission/deployment, you would possibly be able to use a fuel bladder system in these areas for additional fuel bunkerage for aviation fuel ? Just a thought

Cheers

 

[t68]

I was not aware of the effort put into modular support in that respect to the RN, look forward to catching up on the RN thread, and will post and questions there.

As mentioned weapons, and more importantly fuel are a real issue and as you have mentioned no real easy solutions, it it not as easy and linking up containerised fuel bunkerage and plumbing it up.

Just a thought, thinking out of the box, the LHD's have very large void areas that are flooded with saltwater to lower and aft of the ships and flood the dock, if a LHD was to be used in a more fixed wing role for a particular mission/deployment, you would possibly be able to use a fuel bladder system in these areas for additional fuel bunkerage for aviation fuel ? Just a thought

Cheers

Bladders are doable but would imagine the vapour problem would be hard to overcome unless you can get a palletised vapour recovery unit to such a confined space and it's a large amount of fuel in such a small area if something goes wrong.

I did think of 86 tpt road tankers as storage only chained down to the deck which would give approx 38000 litres per single tanker @.74

 

[alexsa]

Bladders are doable but would imagine the vapour problem would be hard to overcome unless you can get a palletised vapour recovery unit to such a confined space and it's a large amount of fuel in such a small area if something goes wrong.

I did think of 86 tpt road tankers as storage only chained down to the deck which would give approx 38000 litres per single tanker @.74

It is a Naval vessel so defence can do what they like should thye wish.....but ...... there is no way on earth a commercial vessel would be allowed to put a bladder in a space where this effectively compromises the ships structurtal fire protection.

As you note you are looking at a lot of fuel and a lot of vapour is a space with numerous sources of ignition.

RAS for resupply may be the best option

 

[StingrayOZ]

Bladders are doable but would imagine the vapour problem would be hard to overcome unless you can get a palletised vapour recovery unit to such a confined space and it's a large amount of fuel in such a small area if something goes wrong.

Im not sure if bladders are the solution. Ideally I think at sea replenishment solves the problem as it doesn't take up any space on the LHD.To significantly increase the Jp5 capacity you would need ~1000m2 of space. Replenishment could be monthly, fortnightly or weekly depending on operations.

Problems are things like Aegir 18r wouldn't be able to replentish the LHD jp-5 more than once, completely. So if we got the 18r and we are trying to run fixed wing ops and are operating two LHD's, at a high intensity then we have a problem.This can be avoided by making sure we have replenishment that can support more than ~500,000 gal of Jp-5 (and 1,000,000 might be more appropriate).

SASWannabe posted a great post back in 2011 about fuel capacities of carriers including replenishment.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/hypothetical-carrier-buy-ran-10410-58/

I would also think about ship magazine and compatibility with F-35 ordinances and capacity.

It again depends on how we want to use it. Most likely we will be deploying 2 x LHD together to get the capability we want, providing a combined fuel reserve than a Wasp LHD. With 2 ships finding place for say 2 or 3 F-35's on each ship would provide significant capability (and I would imagine at least 1 would be on deck ready to go on each ship).

As a pure aircraft carrier. I would imagine 2 x LHD (surge), each with up to 12 -F35B's + NH90's + UAV would provide very significant capability to anywhere in the region or globally. To sustain that commitment one of the LHD could be relieved at a time, refreshing maintenance stores, engines, air frames, weapon magazines, personnel etc. With two ships, you could run as the USN does and have a day carrier, and a night carrier. When operations slow, you then go back to a single ship deployment which you can sustain as long as needed without interfering with maintenance or training.

IMO it is better to be able to replace a ship after a month or two, with a fresh crew, fresh, supplies, fresh stores, fresh facilities, than try to maintain a long deployment of your single carrier. Given that we are most likely going to operate in the region (pacific or Indian oceans) that approach shouldn't be as much of a problem as travel time will be short and relatively low risk.

But I guess why I think 3x LHD make more sense than 2x LHD + 1 carrier, is that you don't compromise your amphibious capability at all to do it (in fact you enhance it as you can now train that amphib capability). The only thing that would require a big reconsider is say PoW or an America class purchase (or gift) as they are in a different class of ship. IMO highly unlikely, and its unlikely that even if it got something like that we could operate it effectively (crewing, replenishment, training, maintenance etc) unless we were on a war footing. Where as a 3rd LHD is just another one off the rack and fits in with all our long term planning, logistics and training. In fact if we were serious and we didn't want a local build, we could put in an offer for Juan Carlos herself which Spain could replace with another build.

 

[t68]

Im not sure if bladders are the solution. Ideally I think at sea replenishment solves the problem as it doesn't take up any space on the LHD.To significantly increase the Jp5 capacity you would need ~1000m2 of space. Replenishment could be monthly, fortnightly or weekly depending on operations.

Problems are things like Aegir 18r wouldn't be able to replentish the LHD jp-5 more than once, completely. So if we got the 18r and we are trying to run fixed wing ops and are operating two LHD's, at a high intensity then we have a problem.This can be avoided by making sure we have replenishment that can support more than ~500,000 gal of Jp-5 (and 1,000,000 might be more appropriate).

SASWannabe posted a great post back in 2011 about fuel capacities of carriers including replenishment.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/hypothetical-carrier-buy-ran-10410-58/

I would also think about ship magazine and compatibility with F-35 ordinances and capacity.

It again depends on how we want to use it. Most likely we will be deploying 2 x LHD together to get the capability we want, providing a combined fuel reserve than a Wasp LHD. With 2 ships finding place for say 2 or 3 F-35's on each ship would provide significant capability (and I would imagine at least 1 would be on deck ready to go on each ship).

As a pure aircraft carrier. I would imagine 2 x LHD (surge), each with up to 12 -F35B's + NH90's + UAV would provide very significant capability to anywhere in the region or globally. To sustain that commitment one of the LHD could be relieved at a time, refreshing maintenance stores, engines, air frames, weapon magazines, personnel etc. With two ships, you could run as the USN does and have a day carrier, and a night carrier. When operations slow, you then go back to a single ship deployment which you can sustain as long as needed without interfering with maintenance or training.

IMO it is better to be able to replace a ship after a month or two, with a fresh crew, fresh, supplies, fresh stores, fresh facilities, than try to maintain a long deployment of your single carrier. Given that we are most likely going to operate in the region (pacific or Indian oceans) that approach shouldn't be as much of a problem as travel time will be short and relatively low risk.

But I guess why I think 3x LHD make more sense than 2x LHD + 1 carrier, is that you don't compromise your amphibious capability at all to do it (in fact you enhance it as you can now train that amphib capability). The only thing that would require a big reconsider is say PoW or an America class purchase (or gift) as they are in a different class of ship. IMO highly unlikely, and its unlikely that even if it got something like that we could operate it effectively (crewing, replenishment, training, maintenance etc) unless we were on a war footing. Where as a 3rd LHD is just another one off the rack and fits in with all our long term planning, logistics and training. In fact if we were serious and we didn't want a local build, we could put in an offer for Juan Carlos herself which Spain could replace with another build.

Don’t really like the idea of bladders for the LHD as it was a suggestion put out by aussienscale, bladders have their place in the Army/Air Force in an open area such as a replenishment park were vapour is still a problem but more manageable in a controlled environment.

As for the 3rd LHD you bring up good points as usual a sound case each have their merits but still think that we need 2nd Bay as well, big ask

 

[Punta74]

Would a shared carrier system in pacific work ? ..both Uss America, and Hmas Australia(tripoli lh7)..

Shared team using Hmas Australia, 2/3 year, then Uss america when refit etc.

US did want to base carrier fleet in perth a few years ago.

 

[Volkodav]

In hindsight, it is too bad the Cavour didn't get a serious look in to the requirement that led to the Canberras. The lack of a dock would have given the LCH replacement greater impetus and may have led to the requirement for two or three small LPDs instead of one large one.

Just an interesting angle to look at it from, as I do recall Cavour was looked at but dropped by the time designs were tendered, considering the F-35B is now being proposed. We seem to do this to often, discard an obvious solution in favour of the new paradigm then a decade down the track, spend large sums of money to try and get the new paradigm to fit what was the obvious solution that was rejected a decade earlier. i.e. We are spending large sums of money upgrading the ANZACs into tier I surface combatants after specifically rejecting high end options in favor of a tailored Patrol Frigate. Now after selecting a LHD and tailoring it more to the amphibious end of the requirement we are attempting to convert it into a carrier with a secondary amphibious capability that we could have just bought in the first place.

Just getting sick of the waste of money and the impact that is having on numbers, capability, sustainment and industry. Government indecision, inconsistency, changing direction and moving goal posts is killing industry and damaging the ADF through all the time effort and money being wasted trying to keep up with what the government of the day wants.

 

[t68]

In hindsight, it is too bad the Cavour didn't get a serious look in to the requirement that led to the Canberras. The lack of a dock would have given the LCH replacement greater impetus and may have led to the requirement for two or three small LPDs instead of one large one.

Just an interesting angle to look at it from, as I do recall Cavour was looked at but dropped by the time designs were tendered, considering the F-35B is now being proposed. We seem to do this to often, discard an obvious solution in favour of the new paradigm then a decade down the track, spend large sums of money to try and get the new paradigm to fit what was the obvious solution that was rejected a decade earlier. i.e. We are spending large sums of money upgrading the ANZACs into tier I surface combatants after specifically rejecting high end options in favor of a tailored Patrol Frigate. Now after selecting a LHD and tailoring it more to the amphibious end of the requirement we are attempting to convert it into a carrier with a secondary amphibious capability that we could have just bought in the first place.

Just getting sick of the waste of money and the impact that is having on numbers, capability, sustainment and industry. Government indecision, inconsistency, changing direction and moving goal posts is killing industry and damaging the ADF through all the time effort and money being wasted trying to keep up with what the government of the day wants.

I feel the same way, as Cavour has a secondary sealift capacity it might be better than the 3rd LHD if we are going to have a serious fixed wing strike capacity.

I have often wondered if Australia was better of on similar deal like the Invincible with a joint combat aircraft for both RAN/RAAF as we had the carrier capable legacy hornets a reduced amount of fixed wing aircraft to 54 enough to fill out two carrier and replaced the F111 with a true LRSB 24xB52/B1B, seriously were we only ever going to do expeditionary campaigns, has the RAAF ever intercepted a military fast jet in Australian airspace?

 

[ngatimozart]

has the RAAF ever intercepted a military fast jet in Australian airspace?

Just on this point, it's not if they have or not that is the important question, but whether or not the possibility exists that they might have too that is important. Can you truly discount the option that at Australia will not face the risk of having hostile aircraft threatening its airspace? IMHO to do so is not an acceptable risk. My 2 cents worth.

 

[t68]

Just on this point, it's not if they have or not that is the important question, but whether or not the possibility exists that they might have too that is important. Can you truly discount the option that at Australia will not face the risk of having hostile aircraft threatening its airspace? IMHO to do so is not an acceptable risk. My 2 cents worth.

I am not talking about disbanding the need for an ACF more of the opinion that would we have been better served with joint combat aircraft onboard two capable carriers split between RAN/RAAF, after all the legacy Hornets have only deployed for possible INTERFET missions and in 2001 Diego Garcia and also the 2003 Iraq war, and the most ever aircraft deployed was only 14x Hornets. We have also on more than one occasion with past Prime Ministers have called for no fly zone such as the case of Libya all these are expeditionary in nature, with a floating airfield we could-should-would more options. 14 aircraft deployed by air or 16-18 aircraft deployed by ship and providing the government with more options in any given scenario

I’ll Quote Abraham Gubler on what could have been with the Essex Class carrier from the 1960’s if we had gotten these then replaced with a conventional powered Charles De Gaulle with legacy hornets and E2 Hawkeyes,

“The Australian Essex (HMAS Australia) would have a very different air wing to USN Oriskany class. It would include 16 Phantom strike fighters, 12 Tracker ASW aircraft, 4 Tracer AEW aircraft, 16 Wessex ASW helicopters and 2 Whirlwind SAR helicopters. In effect this is far more like an ASW air wing than an attack air wing and would benefit from the long endurance of the Tracker and Tracer aircraft and large number of helicopters. This would place less demand on the elevators for movements compared to an attack carrier air wing. A typical cycle would only need to include 10 aircraft launches and recoveries compared to around 30 for an attack wing”


also could have gone for a mix of Phantoms/Hornets & Blackburn Buccaneer later on

 

[Volkodav]

I have never seen it written anywhere but have been told by a number of ex RAAF personnel that during the 70s the Mirage replacement was assumed to be a mix of 50 F-15 and 50 Harriers (either AV-8B or Seaharrier) to be operated jointly with the RAN off their new carrier when it was available.

So a higher end fighter for land based ops plus a STOVL type for expeditionary warfare. In hindsight probably not a bad plan, too bad it didn't go ahead. In fact had the F-15 been in RAAF service a case could have been made in the early 90s to replace the F-111 with F-15E. A force of 50 F15C, 24 (or more) F-15E and 50 AV-8B (all or some upgraded to B+) doesn't sound to bad and would have perfectly tailed into being replaced with F-35A and B post 2015.

 

[SpazSinbad]

'Volkadav' said: "I have never seen it written anywhere but have been told by a number of ex RAAF personnel that during the 70s the Mirage replacement was assumed to be a mix of 50 F-15 and 50 Harriers (either AV-8B or Seaharrier) to be operated jointly with the RAN off their new carrier when it was available...."

Wow. Being ex-A4G until the mid 1970s, then intensely interested in the argeybargey subsequently, that is an amazing story. I have never heard mention of such an idea however I can guess it may have been bandied about ONLY in the RAAF. Do you have any more clues on this please? Thanks.

The idea from 'Gubler' of an Essex Carrier for the RAN was discounted quickly at the time (early 1960s?) due to the manpower requirements firstly, apart from any other negative aspects. I think there will be documentation about this 'knockback'.

 

[Volkodav]

'Volkadav' said: "I have never seen it written anywhere but have been told by a number of ex RAAF personnel that during the 70s the Mirage replacement was assumed to be a mix of 50 F-15 and 50 Harriers (either AV-8B or Seaharrier) to be operated jointly with the RAN off their new carrier when it was available...."

Wow. Being ex-A4G until the mid 1970s, then intensely interested in the argeybargey subsequently, that is an amazing story. I have never heard mention of such an idea however I can guess it may have been bandied about ONLY in the RAAF. Do you have any more clues on this please? Thanks.

The idea from 'Gubler' of an Essex Carrier for the RAN was discounted quickly at the time (early 1960s?) due to the manpower requirements firstly, apart from any other negative aspects. I think there will be documentation about this 'knockback'.

None at all, which is why I am very clear that it something i have heard but never seen written anywhere, although I have seen mention of a batch of 50 F-15(A or C) but never of Harriers. I hope someone can shed some light on this so i will know whether there is some substance to it or if it was just a good story that went around at the time.

There was also alot of opinion within the RAAF in the 80s that the Eagle should have been selected over the F/A-18, even at the expense of local manufacture and even numbers of aircraft. All a long time ago now and the Hornet has served Australia well, its just interesting to look back at other ideas around at the time.

On the carriers, Hermes was also offered as a hot transfer in 68 and rejected on manning grounds.