Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[hauritz]

The RAN always had plans for getting back into the carrier game. I remember the MRA/LSS plans it drew up around 15 years ago.

Greater role for Navy in the Pacific inevitable (Michael Murray)

The MRA sounds very much like the Canberra class and I can't help but wonder if the navy isn't working hard in the background to see the LSS come to fruition.

 

[MickB]

If the MRA is the Canberra, the LSS sounds like the Cavour.
How about a fleet with two x Canberra and two x Cavour.

 

[t68]

If the MRA is the Canberra, the LSS sounds like the Cavour.
How about a fleet with two x Canberra and two x Cavour.

For the occasions when we deploy a full ARG we need 2x Canberra plus the Choules, if we want to sustain that and have strategic sealift we need another Canberra and a Bay class LPD. Until we know what they actually want the F35B for and in what numbers, we then can speculate to the merits of individual platforms

 

[MickB]

Given all the talk of operating F35Bs, I wonder how long it would take, in reality to get them into service.

Would they wait to build them ounce all the A models are complete.

If built concurrently, would our production slots follow those of the US, UK, Italy, and other possable purchases such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore.

Are we looking at 10 to 15 years at the earliest, before these aircraft could reach IOC.

 

[Engines101]

Mick,

No, if the Australians wanted Bs (and I know that that is a big if) my guess is that they could have them any time after around 2015.

They could even trade some A models for Bs. It's not obvious, but there is a useful amount of commonality between the variants, especially in the avionics area as well as many of the aircraft systems (all cost drivers). Plus the A and B (and C) flying characteristics 'up and away' are very similar.

T68 is quite right in that any F-35B purchase would have to be made against a sound tactical case - my concern is that 'land based air power' proponents will invariably state that putting Bs on LHDs would be 'too difficult' or 'ineffective', without being adequately challenged.

Interesting times, though

Engines101

Given all the talk of operating F35Bs, I wonder how long it would take, in reality to get them into service.

Would they wait to build them ounce all the A models are complete.

If built concurrently, would our production slots follow those of the US, UK, Italy, and other possable purchases such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore.

Are we looking at 10 to 15 years at the earliest, before these aircraft could reach IOC.

 

[Magoo]

If (and regardless of its merits I still think it's a mighty big IF) the ADF went with STOVLs, these would likely be acquired under Phase 2C or a new phase of AIR6000 which isn't due for a decision until the F-35As reach FOC in 2023, and likely won't enter service until >2027 to replace some or all of the Super Hornets.

Without a massive supplementary funding injection into the budget, there is simply no money for a purchase of 20-30 more combat aircraft in the next decade. It's been done before (e.g. C-17, Super Hornet, Growler), but that was in the days of budget surpluses.

 

[Volkodav]

If (and regardless of its merits I still think it's a mighty big IF) the ADF went with STOVLs, these would likely be acquired under Phase 2C or a new phase of AIR6000 which isn't due for a decision until the F-35As reach FOC in 2023, and likely won't enter service until >2027 to replace some or all of the Super Hornets.

Without a massive supplementary funding injection into the budget, there is simply no money for a purchase of 20-30 more combat aircraft in the next decade. It's been done before (e.g. C-17, Super Hornet, Growler), but that was in the days of budget surpluses.

If it is a desired capability there appears to be plenty of time to do it properly, possibly even with new ships should the LHDs prove unsuitable or unable to be spared from their current role. The actual ship its self is not the expensive part of carrier air power but rather the aircraft, if you have the aircraft then building suitable platform is just common sense.

 

[hauritz]

My tip is that any f-35B plan is a long way off. Probably linked to the superhornet replacement. It wouldn't surprise me if a more air capable LHD, perhaps based on the Canberra hull, would be also built around that time.

The Choules would be up for replacement at about that time so it would be a way of covering its replacement as well.

A carrier would probably be intended to counter the Chinese carrier program, and that is probably still a decade or more away from being any sort of real threat ... so there is still plenty of time.

 

[t68]

My tip is that any f-35B plan is a long way off. Probably linked to the superhornet replacement. It wouldn't surprise me if a more air capable LHD, perhaps based on the Canberra hull, would be also built around that time.

The Choules would be up for replacement at about that time so it would be a way of covering its replacement as well.

A carrier would probably be intended to counter the Chinese carrier program, and that is probably still a decade or more away from being any sort of real threat ... so there is still plenty of time.

A carrier in the RAN would most likely to counter subsurface activity with MH-60R, F35B role is fleet defence,escort,CAS and shaping the AO prior to a landing or air exclusion zone, US/UK will if it came to that be the one's going toe to toe with any future Chinese carrier

Can't help thinking if we did get a light ASW carrier would it be better to have a mix of MH-60R-S3Viking-F35C, E/A18-G&E2D Hawkeye plus support helicopters an all round capabilty which can be tailored.

 

[ngatimozart]

Can't help thinking if we did get a light ASW carrier would it be better to have a mix of MH-60R-S3Viking-F35C, E/A18-G&E2D Hawkeye plus support helicopters an all round capabilty which can be tailored.

I just have a query. I take it if, and that's a very big if, the RAN were to go into the carrier business they would be looking at a STOVL carrier with a ski jump because of the idea floated that the ADF might look at the F35B. All of a sudden you are talking about flying F18s, Hawkeyes and Vikings off a carrier. That means you have to go to a CATOBAR carrier which is a highly expensive exercise. The last time I looked, F35Cs, F18s, Vikings and Hawkeyes would have great difficulty flying off and landing on a STOVL carrier. Methinks you need to take a big dose of realism and pragmatism. This post of yours is getting into the dream world. This kiwi is wondering if you're on the electric puha.

 

[t68]

I just have a query. I take it if, and that's a very big if, the RAN were to go into the carrier business they would be looking at a STOVL carrier with a ski jump because of the idea floated that the ADF might look at the F35B. All of a sudden you are talking about flying F18s, Hawkeyes and Vikings off a carrier. That means you have to go to a CATOBAR carrier which is a highly expensive exercise. The last time I looked, F35Cs, F18s, Vikings and Hawkeyes would have great difficulty flying off and landing on a STOVL carrier. Methinks you need to take a big dose of realism and pragmatism. This post of yours is getting into the dream world. This kiwi is wondering if you're on the electric puha.

As I said before its a wait and see propastion, but if the intension is geared towards ASW a mix of P8,S3 Viking , MH-60R would make a potent force. Having the S-Hornets in the fleet now means it one part of the triangle we could put off further down the track. Of it is the intension of the goverment to go that way they will have to bite the bullet on type of ship anyway, it seems that it was the PM advocating the F35B not defence, so the report could in theory recommend to goverment a range of options and the pro and cons on if we do this it gives us these options to XYZ

 

[alexsa]

As I said before its a wait and see propastion, but if the intension is geared towards ASW a mix of P8,S3 Viking , MH-60R would make a potent force. Having the S-Hornets in the fleet now means it one part of the triangle we could put off further down the track. Of it is the intension of the goverment to go that way they will have to bite the bullet on type of ship anyway, it seems that it was the PM advocating the F35B not defence, so the report could in theory recommend to goverment a range of options and the pro and cons on if we do this it gives us these options to XYZ

Seriously........ this is a CVF size platform you are talking about and that really is pie in the sky. At the moment it is talk. However, if Australia was to 'go into the carrier business' then the best we can really expect is the LHD and a light carrier such as the Cavour.

For our needs anything more would resut in quite a force imballance based on what se can expect from budget. Don't get me wrong I like the idea of a light carrier wiht the LHD's as extra decks (helo based AEW should be considered in any scenario) but we would hacve to scew our spending pretty dramatically to get where you are suggesting.

• Politically for our external realtions I think would not have ahope in hell of flying without pretty serious implications. We my get away wiht F-35B and a light carrier looking at how the region is going, a full blown CATOBAR carrier is a very different prospect
  
• Polically internally - this idea is a dead duck, andy change of government and it will go.
  
• Interservice ..... a full CATOBAR carrier drawing funding from other areas (including submarines) would be difficult to sell

So while it sounds nice it really is not going to happen.

 

[Bonza]

As I said before its a wait and see propastion, but if the intension is geared towards ASW a mix of P8,S3 Viking , MH-60R would make a potent force. Having the S-Hornets in the fleet now means it one part of the triangle we could put off further down the track. Of it is the intension of the goverment to go that way they will have to bite the bullet on type of ship anyway, it seems that it was the PM advocating the F35B not defence, so the report could in theory recommend to goverment a range of options and the pro and cons on if we do this it gives us these options to XYZ

See, this is why I asked people to stick to reality earlier in the thread - and you responded, something to the effect of "what regular posters are suggesting isn't so different to what the def pros are suggesting", and implied some favouritism of some kind.

You then say a small ASW carrier should be careful to include (deep breath) - F-35, MH-60R, S-3 Viking (which is no longer in production and requires a CATOBAR carrier as far as I know), EA-18G Growlers (which require CATOBAR carriers too), AND E-2D. You have described the air group of a Nimitz-sized ship, not, as you put it, "a small ASW carrier".

So the next time you want to tell me my business and act as though I'm picking on you, bloody well reference this post and remember what sort of behaviour it is I'm talking about. And shape up - there's too much fantasy in this thread as it is.

 

[Volkodav]

Irrespective of whether the F-35B is adopted into Australian service or not I believe there is a place for a DDH or similar in Australian service, even at the expense of Frigate numbers. (caveat being that the PBs are replaced or supplemented with OPVs or light frigates).

My thinking is that even without Lightnings a couple of ships such as this would be a versatile force multiplier boosting ASW, MCM, air assault, AEW, and even UCAVs. Add the F-35B to the mix and the potential goes through the roof. Just imagine three of them, each about the cost of a high end frigate, one to work with each DDG.

Fantasy I know but affordable and I believe a good fit for the RAN, best thing is they would leave the LHD to fill their primary role and perhaps permit them to operate in a higher threat environment.

 

[t68]

See, this is why I asked people to stick to reality earlier in the thread - and you responded, something to the effect of "what regular posters are suggesting isn't so different to what the def pros are suggesting", and implied some favouritism of some kind.

You then say a small ASW carrier should be careful to include (deep breath) - F-35, MH-60R, S-3 Viking (which is no longer in production and requires a CATOBAR carrier as far as I know), EA-18G Growlers (which require CATOBAR carriers too), AND E-2D. You have described the air group of a Nimitz-sized ship, not, as you put it, "a small ASW carrier".

So the next time you want to tell me my business and act as though I'm picking on you, bloody well reference this post and remember what sort of behaviour it is I'm talking about. And shape up - there's too much fantasy in this thread as it is.

I think its time some on here calm down, who's talking about a Nimitz size carrier, certantly not me. Let's see a Cavour or Canberra is up to 30000tons and a max of 30 aircraft, a modern convetionally powerd Charles De Gaulle is 42000t at full load and depending on mission stays is is up to 40 aircraft. Yes the French would like to go larger as a replacement carrier up to QEC sized. Seems to me that if we desire a small CATOBAR carrier we could always put out a RFI, just because others are building STOVL carriers that fit to what their respective goverments will allow doesn't mean we have to. No one makes a JSS ship to the requirments of our Kiwi cousins so the have a RFI to gain information to what can be done.

No depending on what the goverment wants, it's the F35B on the Canberra to perform a light carrier. I am speculating that they desire a ASW focused carrier the my or may not be the case, F35 with MH-60R all well and good. But at the end of the day we will have a part time capabilty in both ASW and Amphibious operations not a full time capabilty if that's what the goverment wants then that's what it wants. All I am suggesting if it does not want a partime capabilty then we have to get another platform. We currently have 24x F/A-18F in the fleet with 12xE/A-18G on the way.also we are building 24xMH-60R so in theory we ready have majoirty of the fleet coming soon. Which bring us to the S3Viking, as far as I am awere the South Korean are looking into refurbishing these to supplement their ASW capabilty if they do and we 14x aircraft buying these in place of the F35B.

A small CATBOR carrier in RAN could be mixed with
12x F/A-18F
6x S3Viking
6x EA-18G
6/9 MH-60R
3x E2 D Hawkeye
The load our can be more or less than what I suggested and it is only a suggestion

Don't see that being anywhere near the capabilty of a Nimitz or even a QEC. As i have said before when the government makes a determination we can then speculate, but for myself can see the point in having a part time capabilty, as GF has himself said before the diffrence between a good defence force and a mediocre one is training, do we want a part time capabilty or a full time capabilty with equipment we already have in the cupboard.

 

[Punta74]

Is there any possibility we should "consider" buying the 2 x russian Minstrals, IF a sale is stopped.

We could then use Canberra's for fixed wing?

 

[the road runner]

Is there any possibility we should "consider" buying the 2 x russian Minstrals, IF a sale is stopped.

We would be better placing another order for a Canberra class
Reason being we would have to set up new training.doctrine and ensure we have spare parts for a Mistral.A waste of money/resources in mirroring a capability we already have with the Canberra Class IMHO.

The Defence budget is only so big and should be spent wisely.
Buying a single Aircraft carrier is only a part time capability as the crew has to be trained up,the ship has to go into refit,the pilots have to maintain their skills ect.

I am curious... if we did just buy one dedicated Carrier how many months of a year could it be at sea? I am assuming 3 months of a year... or so before having to return to port to relieve the crew and service the ship and air craft?

If thats the case i think the money could be better spent on more helicopters,frigates ,corvettes ect


Great posts Engines101

 

[RobWilliams]

I'd rather have a small STOVL carrier than a small CATOBAR carrier, one has better output for small ship operations than the other.

For a country which currently has the aspirations for some form of carrier air *perhaps*, then building a CATOBAR carrier is faaaaar less reasonable as a 'what if' than the idea of another LHD (even then that's a stretch).

 

[Engines101]

We would be better placing another order for a Canberra class
Reason being we would have to set up new training.doctrine and ensure we have spare parts for a Mistral.A waste of money/resources in mirroring a capability we already have with the Canberra Class IMHO.

The Defence budget is only so big and should be spent wisely.
Buying a single Aircraft carrier is only a part time capability as the crew has to be trained up,the ship has to go into refit,the pilots have to maintain their skills ect.

I am curious... if we did just buy one dedicated Carrier how many months of a year could it be at sea? I am assuming 3 months of a year... or so before having to return to port to relieve the crew and service the ship and air craft?

If thats the case i think the money could be better spent on more helicopters,frigates ,corvettes ect


Great posts Engines101

For what it's worth, I would not see using the Canberras as 'dedicated fixed wing' as a very effective move. They could be used as a multi-role platform, if that is what the ADF wanted.

Again, only my view, but any ship, whatever it's role, should be able to go to sea for six months at a stretch and stay operational. Aircraft like F-35B are designed to be serviced at sea, as are most parts of the ship.

One point about STOVL, especially the new generation aircraft such as F-35B, is that the training workload for pilots to embark (I.e. Basic deck landings and take offs) should be greatly reduced compared to legacy STOVL and much, much smaller than CATOBAR ops require. The main training load would, in my view, be the 'whole ship' requirement to work up for effective all weather day/night air operations - and that wouldn't be so very different for fixed or rotary wing ops.

Best regards

Engines101

 

[Bonza]

I think its time some on here calm down, who's talking about a Nimitz size carrier, certantly not me. Let's see a Cavour or Canberra is up to 30000tons and a max of 30 aircraft, a modern convetionally powerd Charles De Gaulle is 42000t at full load and depending on mission stays is is up to 40 aircraft. Yes the French would like to go larger as a replacement carrier up to QEC sized. Seems to me that if we desire a small CATOBAR carrier we could always put out a RFI, just because others are building STOVL carriers that fit to what their respective goverments will allow doesn't mean we have to. No one makes a JSS ship to the requirments of our Kiwi cousins so the have a RFI to gain information to what can be done.

No depending on what the goverment wants, it's the F35B on the Canberra to perform a light carrier. I am speculating that they desire a ASW focused carrier the my or may not be the case, F35 with MH-60R all well and good. But at the end of the day we will have a part time capabilty in both ASW and Amphibious operations not a full time capabilty if that's what the goverment wants then that's what it wants. All I am suggesting if it does not want a partime capabilty then we have to get another platform. We currently have 24x F/A-18F in the fleet with 12xE/A-18G on the way.also we are building 24xMH-60R so in theory we ready have majoirty of the fleet coming soon. Which bring us to the S3Viking, as far as I am awere the South Korean are looking into refurbishing these to supplement their ASW capabilty if they do and we 14x aircraft buying these in place of the F35B.

A small CATBOR carrier in RAN could be mixed with
12x F/A-18F
6x S3Viking
6x EA-18G
6/9 MH-60R
3x E2 D Hawkeye
The load our can be more or less than what I suggested and it is only a suggestion

Don't see that being anywhere near the capabilty of a Nimitz or even a QEC. As i have said before when the government makes a determination we can then speculate, but for myself can see the point in having a part time capabilty, as GF has himself said before the diffrence between a good defence force and a mediocre one is training, do we want a part time capabilty or a full time capabilty with equipment we already have in the cupboard.

But to have the numbers necessary across all platforms to create a consistent capability, which will involve sortie rates as well, means you cannot just have a "token" load on any of the platforms, otherwise their presence is pointless. Putting twelve Super Hornets to sea isn't difficult, but where does generating meaningful numbers for different mission sets come into this? How does one balance say the combat air patrol with other possible demands on the Super Hornet group at a given time?

You see what I mean? I'm not talking about size necessary to fit the airframes but size necessary to maintain sortie rates, maintain individual platform demands like a CAP, etc.

And I agree, we can be calmer about this. I do agree with your sentiment there. But you have to balance real world limitations with token numbers of multiple platforms on a small ship.