Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[the road runner]

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.

Cheers for the reply to my question and expanding on it.

 

[Engines101]

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.

Bonza (and others),

A key point about STOVL is that it breaks what has become a rather rigid and unaffordable paradigm (sorry about that word) for generating 'maritime aviation'. The CATOBAR model, as perfected by the USN, tends to lead to very large carriers of well over 75,000 tons. This is driven by a number of factors, but one of the biggest is the physical space and energy demands of the launching and arresting gear required to handle large aircraft such as F/A-18 and E-2C.

The French experiment with a smaller nuclear carrier (CDG) has not been an unalloyed success, and the RN took a good look at that ship as she was working up. Shortened catapults and limited spaces down below don't help sortie generation. She has also been furiously expensive.

The UK QEC is sized at around 65,000 tons as the absolute minimum size for CATOBAR ops, and that required the RN to trade away the ability to launch and recover simultaneously. In the end, CATOBAR ops proved to be simply unaffordable for the UK. I'd suggest that the same is true for the ADF, and indeed anyone except the US and China. (Honestly, I'm not sure that the French can actually afford the CDG).

(Oh, and putting a dozen Super Hornets to sea on a CATOBAR ship is extremely difficult - it's just that the USN make it look easy).

There has been (and continues to be) a sort of circular argument about maritime aviation, where a land based model of operations is assumed, along with a land based set of capabilities. In truth, very few maritime aviation proponents argue that this capability fully replaces land based 'air power'. Rather, maritime aviation is perhaps more clearly seen as a more effective weapon system for a fleet to use in pursuit of national political ends.

Put simply, the question can be phrased as 'can a fleet use the capability offered by STOVL aircraft on ships below 30,000 tons?' The answer to that (in my view) is a firm yes. The RN and the USMC have proved it.

A harder question, and one that can only be answered by a government, is 'do we want this capability?'

But one thing that I'm clear about. Five F-35Bs on an LHD would not be a 'token' capability. They'd certainly be a lot less 'token' than, say, 10 Tigers.

Hope this stuff helps the thread along,

Engines101

 

[Volkodav]

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

Thanks for the input, the more I read of your opinions and experiences the more convinced I become that the F-35B is actually a possibility for the ADF. I have long been pushing the idea of a class of DDH such as the Hyuga or Izzomo for the RAN but with a rotary wing air group in mind because I could not see the CoA ever considering the B model Lightning, now that appears to have changed.

If the RAN were the acquire a couple of Invincible (or larger) sized DDH then the B would be a perfect fit and completely transform the nature and capability of the RAN. AEW would be a must, MCM would be a highly desirable, the existing ASW and attack helicopter capabilities would be enhanced in reach, sustainability and flexibility. Overall the reach and situational awareness of any group they joined would be increased exponentially as would the strike, air defence, ASW capabilities.

Well worth the loss of a number of frigates to fund, theoretically a one for one swap but even if it worked out at three DDH instead of four or even five frigates, the it would be IMO worth it. A class of light frigate or corvettes may be necessary to make up numbers to cover UN and alliance operations but would be affordable and good enough, especially if the existence of a couple of light carriers was factored into it.

 

[King Wally]

I'm taking a guess only here, but I really feel the current and near future gov's are looking at a much more simplistic question then many folks here are grasping toward. I assume the question is...

"Given we have 2 x Canberra Class on the way, would it be a solid investment to also pick up a squadron of F-35B to enhance their capability/usefulness"

If the gov gets a answer similar to "well sure but buy us two more specialist carriers and etc etc etc", they will get likely stopped in their tracks as it goes beyond the fundamental question which is "enhance the usefulness of the Canberra Class". I really 100% believe if the advisors can't paint a rosy picture of F-35B via the existing 2 x Canberra class then this simply is NOT going to happen. Certainly not with the current budget or global stability levels remaining on par with the present. I think if there is any small chance at adding extra ships, at a stretch one could argue for a 3rd Canberra Class, but even that's going to be a hell of a hurdle. The debate here likely needs to refocus on the Canberra Class, even if its not ideal, and then draw a conclusion, worth it... or not?

 

[aussienscale]

Put simply, the question can be phrased as 'can a fleet use the capability offered by STOVL aircraft on ships below 30,000 tons?' The answer to that (in my view) is a firm yes. The RN and the USMC have proved it.

A harder question, and one that can only be answered by a government, is 'do we want this capability?'

But one thing that I'm clear about. Five F-35Bs on an LHD would not be a 'token' capability. They'd certainly be a lot less 'token' than, say, 10 Tigers.

Hope this stuff helps the thread along,

Engines101

Cheers Engines, yes this stuff is helping, learning a lot.

To open up the discussion more, yes it does come down to whether the Government wants this capability. But I think we are also looking at this from a single angle.

How would the capability also fit in from a regional POV ? Obviously the emergence of China is the SE Asian discussion point, combine that with the re-focus of the US in the region, indications from many other nations on obtaining the F-35B (Japan, South Korea, Singapore), how could the strategic posture of our nations form future force and what could/would be the expectation of Australia to contribute ?

Also the discussion so far has centred around the utility of the B on the Canberra's or obtaining another platform like a Cavour style, and your replies to that have been insightful and appreciated.

If the B's were to be purchased, they would certainly be RAAF, but little attention has been mentioned on how they RAAF can use these platforms ? They would obviously not be on the LHD's/Cavour style on a permanent basis, what utility do you see for the RAAF ? Bare bases, austere operations in our country etc ?

Cheers

 

[koala]

I'm taking a guess only here, but I really feel the current and near future gov's are looking at a much more simplistic question then many folks here are grasping toward. I assume the question is...

"Given we have 2 x Canberra Class on the way, would it be a solid investment to also pick up a squadron of F-35B to enhance their capability/usefulness"

If the gov gets a answer similar to "well sure but buy us two more specialist carriers and etc etc etc", they will get likely stopped in their tracks as it goes beyond the fundamental question which is "enhance the usefulness of the Canberra Class". I really 100% believe if the advisors can't paint a rosy picture of F-35B via the existing 2 x Canberra class then this simply is NOT going to happen. Certainly not with the current budget or global stability levels remaining on par with the present. I think if there is any small chance at adding extra ships, at a stretch one could argue for a 3rd Canberra Class, but even that's going to be a hell of a hurdle. The debate here likely needs to refocus on the Canberra Class, even if its not ideal, and then draw a conclusion, worth it... or not?

I totally agree Wally, and if the ADF did acquire the F35B would it be an absolute necessary to run it from the Canberra's or have it transported to forward and remote bases. Just because we have a "B" doesn't mean it is confined to ships.

 

[Volkodav]

I'm taking a guess only here, but I really feel the current and near future gov's are looking at a much more simplistic question then many folks here are grasping toward. I assume the question is...

"Given we have 2 x Canberra Class on the way, would it be a solid investment to also pick up a squadron of F-35B to enhance their capability/usefulness"

If the gov gets a answer similar to "well sure but buy us two more specialist carriers and etc etc etc", they will get likely stopped in their tracks as it goes beyond the fundamental question which is "enhance the usefulness of the Canberra Class". I really 100% believe if the advisors can't paint a rosy picture of F-35B via the existing 2 x Canberra class then this simply is NOT going to happen. Certainly not with the current budget or global stability levels remaining on par with the present. I think if there is any small chance at adding extra ships, at a stretch one could argue for a 3rd Canberra Class, but even that's going to be a hell of a hurdle. The debate here likely needs to refocus on the Canberra Class, even if its not ideal, and then draw a conclusion, worth it... or not?

I agree I am sad to admit, it really is a political question. I suppose what I am hoping for is the LHD / F-35B combination is seen as worthwhile and goes ahead, then when the Bs are on order a review determines that they are actually more affordable, versatile, capable, sustainable and better value for money than either cruise missile armed frigates or very long range land based strike. This results in the order of one or more purpose designed carriers to get the best out of the Bs.

Alternatively another review shows that a substantial increase in ASW capability is required and it is determined that the most affordable way to achieve this is to acquire a class of DDH in place of some of the planned large frigates, rather than the more expensive and less effective option of buying more large frigates. As the CoA has separately decided to order the F-35B to fly from the LHDs, the DDHs are also specified to be able to operate them.

 

[MickB]

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?

I have read (cannot currently find the source) that except for major refits the Melbourne was available 8 months of the year.

 

[StobieWan]

I have read (cannot currently find the source) that except for major refits the Melbourne was available 8 months of the year.

The target for CVF with one available is 5 years from 8 for example.

 

[t68]

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.

If token multiple aircraft you mean the 6x S3 Viking and 6xE/A-18 G Hornets those numbers are comparable with the capability of a Nimitz class carrier without the strike power of a Nimitz a typical CVW comprises of,

Fighter/Attack 1 or 2 squadrons of F/A-18C
2 or 3 squadrons of F/A-18E/F 44x aircraft

Electronic Attack 1 squadron of either 4 EA-6B or 5 EA-18G 4 or 5x aircraft

Airborne Early Warning 1 squadron of E-2C 4x aircraft

Helicopter Sea Combat 1 squadron of 8 MH-60S 8xaircraft

Helicopter Maritime Strike 1 squadron of 11 MH-60R 11xaircraft

Total 71 or 72

By using our current inventory and going CATOBAR from the start limits our exposure to buy new aircraft to the S3 and E2D, admittedly the S3 may have a short life span in our sphere of use unless along with South Korea we have a mutual agreement to upgrade them till the end of the aircraft useful flying and takeoff/landing cycles have been used up.

But the future capability of F35C along with E2D Hawkeye will greatly enhance the overwater track capability and improved overland and littoral performance, al l within the confines of a mobile airfield. We also will to look at future developments as with the QEC they acknowledge that the carrier itself may in the future have to be upgraded to CATOBAR as there may not be a STOVL comparable aircraft after F35B.

The US Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program, all appear to be using the CATOBAR system for take-off and landing, once these systems mature in the future these can become a replacement for our current aircraft, if we do go the carrier route it will see service of between 40-50 years, Hornets are expected to remain in service with the US till the mid-2030. It is also my understanding that the USN has insisted that it will only accept the F-35C with the Block 3F software configuration for operational use, and that will not be available until 2019 at the earliest.

Since the previous government has announced plans to acquire the Growler it is anticipated that plans to keep the Hornet in the fleet until the mid-2030s, slipping the replacement Super Hornets with F-35Cs into the middle of the till 2030 would create significant savings with manageable operational risk.

 

[Bonza]

t68:

Again, think of capability in terms of the carrier's overall capability to support platform numbers, deck spaces for launch and recovery, sortie rates, and fuel and ammunition storage for each platform (which you could also think of in terms of sustainability). This is why I'm saying you need a bigger carrier to make use of the listed platforms. Yes you can put to sea with them, but to generate a sustained capability then there are far more factors than platform count.

I suspect you and I are going to have to agree to disagree here, I think you're just overly optimistic about what can be done with small carriers. You probably think I'm overly pessimistic.

 

[ngatimozart]

If token multiple aircraft you mean the 6x S3 Viking and 6xE/A-18 G Hornets those numbers are comparable with the capability of a Nimitz class carrier without the strike power of a Nimitz a typical CVW comprises of,

Fighter/Attack 1 or 2 squadrons of F/A-18C
2 or 3 squadrons of F/A-18E/F 44x aircraft

Electronic Attack 1 squadron of either 4 EA-6B or 5 EA-18G 4 or 5x aircraft

Airborne Early Warning 1 squadron of E-2C 4x aircraft

Helicopter Sea Combat 1 squadron of 8 MH-60S 8xaircraft

Helicopter Maritime Strike 1 squadron of 11 MH-60R 11xaircraft

Total 71 or 72

By using our current inventory and going CATOBAR from the start limits our exposure to buy new aircraft to the S3 and E2D, admittedly the S3 may have a short life span in our sphere of use unless along with South Korea we have a mutual agreement to upgrade them till the end of the aircraft useful flying and takeoff/landing cycles have been used up.

But the future capability of F35C along with E2D Hawkeye will greatly enhance the overwater track capability and improved overland and littoral performance, al l within the confines of a mobile airfield. We also will to look at future developments as with the QEC they acknowledge that the carrier itself may in the future have to be upgraded to CATOBAR as there may not be a STOVL comparable aircraft after F35B.

The US Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program, all appear to be using the CATOBAR system for take-off and landing, once these systems mature in the future these can become a replacement for our current aircraft, if we do go the carrier route it will see service of between 40-50 years, Hornets are expected to remain in service with the US till the mid-2030. It is also my understanding that the USN has insisted that it will only accept the F-35C with the Block 3F software configuration for operational use, and that will not be available until 2019 at the earliest.

Since the previous government has announced plans to acquire the Growler it is anticipated that plans to keep the Hornet in the fleet until the mid-2030s, slipping the replacement Super Hornets with F-35Cs into the middle of the till 2030 would create significant savings with manageable operational risk.

A CATOBAR in an Australian sense is a dead duck because of the expense and it would suck all the funding, manpower and assets of the RAN to the point that the RAN would not be able to operate the two LHDs nor operate anything else separate of the CBG at the same time. The RAN is just not large enough to operate such a vessel nor does there appear to be any political will for such a vessel. You are flogging a dead horse. Put this way, us Kiwi cousins have got a better chance of operating a DDH with F35Bs than the RAN with a CATOBAR and the aviation assets you envisage. You need to take a real good dose of reality. We have been trying hard to explain that to you. This is getting to be very much like a broken record. A STOVL carrier such as a DDH with a ski ramp is a far better option if and I mean IF the CoA decides it wants to go down the track of fast jets at sea.

 

[King Wally]

@ T68

I've thought exactly what you've thought, hell I'd love it, but it's more within a fantasy realm then even close to the edge of reality debate for the RAN.

Instead of picturing a mini-Nimitz picture a mini-Wasp class. Debate the pro's and cons that would come with that style of limited Naval Fast-Air and I think we're back on track to have a straight up conversation about where the RAN could lean. We've got the 2 LHD's on the way, it's really a matter now of debating how we can get the most out of them.

Anything else the RAN/Gov wont have the will to even look at it, they will organise the Collins replacement and the future frigate, perhaps even a few OPV's but that's really the narrow road we are on I feel.

 

[t68]

t68:

Again, think of capability in terms of the carrier's overall capability to support platform numbers, deck spaces for launch and recovery, sortie rates, and fuel and ammunition storage for each platform (which you could also think of in terms of sustainability). This is why I'm saying you need a bigger carrier to make use of the listed platforms. Yes you can put to sea with them, but to generate a sustained capability then there are far more factors than platform count.

I suspect you and I are going to have to agree to disagree here, I think you're just overly optimistic about what can be done with small carriers. You probably think I'm overly pessimistic.

I guess your right in respects we will agree to disagree, but in saying that the same principle applies to the small STOVL carrier in regards to deck spaces for launch and recovery and fuel and ammunition storage, but agree turnaround times for a larger platform such as QEC will bring up the sortie rates the more usable deck the better, but in the case of a small STOVL carrier and a CATOBAR sortie generation rates would be comparable in my opinion. Regardless of which type of carrier is in RAN service if we want to be able to sustain the rate of effort we have no option but more RAS.

If one looks at the capability gain from comparing the Italian Cavour with its future to be CVW of 15x F35B and 12x AEW/ASW helicopters(max load out) and a conventional powered Charles de Gaulle in my configuration of 12x F/A-18F,6x S3Viking,6x EA-18G,6/9 MH-60R &3x E2 D Hawkeye, the options available to it government in a range contingencies far outweigh the additional cost of cats & traps.

And I honestly don’t see the point in replacing ARH with F35B on the Canberra’s when we don’t have any AEW aircraft organic to the LHD, the whole point of fixed wing provides fleet air defence for the task group as well as provide CAS to the troops on the ground.

 

[t68]

I guess the whole point of the argument is the question is whether how much strategic weight the ADF might need in the future, or whether the government only wants to announce diplomatic gestures? In my opinion the Navy/AirForce should aim to build and sustain military capabilities that will give it ‘real strategic weight in Asia’ as a regional power. If it’s the intention of any government that the RAN/RAAF has no other, independent tactical purpose other than transporting and protecting the Army is a dangerous and flawed development and if it is only about operating in a permissive environment it’s strategically indefensible.

 

[Volkodav]

The key factor is the LHDs already exist, DDHs cost about the same as a high end frigate or DDG, a Cavour is more expensive and a light CTOL carrier doesn't actually exist, would have to be designed and with the catapults, arrester gear etc. would be prohibitively expensive. Also on a small to medium carrier the STOVL option provides a much higher sortie generation rate than the more expensive CTOL design of the same size.

The main advantage CTOL had was it provided for higher performance aircraft, the F-35 changes this with the B model offering almost the same performance as the C model and superior capability to, not only the Harrier but also the F/A-18, Rafale, Mig 29, SUxx, used on other carriers.

A half dozen F-35B on an LHD, especially if an AEW helicopter is acquired, would be a transformational capability for the ADF, a surge capability with a dozen Bs where the amphibious capability is not required even more so. Add a couple of DDH or light carriers down the track to better employ the F-35B, ASW and AEW helicopters and you have a massive expansion of the new capability at minimal cost. Go for a small CTOL carrier instead and you have the massive expense of the new ship and the even greater expense of the new airgroup for little, if any, appreciable increase in capability. Also, instead of an airgroup that can be shared between LHD and DDH ( if acquired), it will be limited to one ship only, actually reducing flexibility and capability compared to the STOVL model.

 

[Punta74]

I'd love a couple of Cavour types in the white paper, but in reality short term I think there's no chance.

Tried to look for various articles to get into the mind set of the white paper pannel.

An interesting quote from the chair Peter Jennings, relating to his view on "Best Post War Policies" . . A good policy runner-up: Malcolm Fraser’s 1982 decision not to replace the aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne—an expensive indulgence.

Haven't seen what others in the pannel have as an opinion on F35b's on Canberra or Dedicated platform.

Does anyone have insight into various thoughts from Pannel members ?

 

[ASSAIL]

in the case of a small STOVL carrier and a CATOBAR sortie generation rates would be comparable in my opinion.

You wouldn't be making this statement if you saw the gyrations the flight deck and hangar crews went through on CVL Melbourne just to deal with Ix CAP on task (4 x A4's borne, 1 x ASW S2 (sometimes 2) on task (6x S2G's borne) and 1 or 2 Seakings in the screen (6 x Seakings borne) plus 2 x Wessex Pedro (Rescue helo) One unservicable (often with helos) and the whole plan gets re-shuffled
CATOBAR requires the whole deck, no matter what's happening and with a small deck and hangar and centreline lifts, space is an absolute nightmare. A STOVL platform has ample space by the side of the "runway" for virtually the length of the ship. The comparison is chalk and cheese.

And I honestly don’t see the point in replacing ARH with F35B on the Canberra’s when we don’t have any AEW aircraft organic to the LHD, the whole point of fixed wing provides fleet air defence for the task group as well as provide CAS to the troops on the ground.

If you were in tactical command the capability difference between Tiger and Lightning is/can be a game changer. Flexibility is the key, the more the better the commander can respond. Don't go into a fight with one arm tied behind your back if the capability is available.
Finally, please don't pigeon hole the F=35B's into just the air defence role.The entire point of the capability is that it is a multi mission aircraft and should be tasked accordingly and is uniquely able to operate off a small deck.

 

[Volkodav]

I'd love a couple of Cavour types in the white paper, but in reality short term I think there's no chance.

Tried to look for various articles to get into the mind set of the white paper pannel.

An interesting quote from the chair Peter Jennings, relating to his view on "Best Post War Policies" . . A good policy runner-up: Malcolm Fraser’s 1982 decision not to replace the aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne—an expensive indulgence.

Haven't seen what others in the pannel have as an opinion on F35b's on Canberra or Dedicated platform.

Does anyone have insight into various thoughts from Pannel members ?

We seem to be set on getting cruise missiles for a land attack capability yet, as Abe has pointed out in the past, a small STOVL carrier is both more effective and flexible a capability adding substantially to defence as well as offense, in particular in terms of persistent strike.

Something I would like to see is the acquisition of AEW and MCM helicopters to operate from the LHDs irrespective of whether the F-35B proceeds or not. Flat decks provide a level flexibility far in excess of any conventionally configured combatant, while not precluding the fitting of high end combat systems including vls. A modern iteration of the still born RN escort cruiser or USN strike cruiser designs would be an interesting proposition today with the Lightning, AEW and MCM, as well as ASW and assault helicopters now available. F-35B for the LHDs could be just the start of a transformation of naval affairs.

Currently a political dead duck (or parrot) the only hope is the B buy goes ahead for the LHDs and proves such a success that increasing the number of flat decks in the fleet becomes a no brainer.

 

[Punta74]

We seem to be set on getting cruise missiles for a land attack capability yet, as Abe has pointed out in the past, a small STOVL carrier is both more effective and flexible a capability adding substantially to defence as well as offense, in particular in terms of persistent strike.
.

Abe seems to be brining forward potential purchase of a Wasp Class for operational status 2019.

Defense Ministry to seek funds for amphibious assault ship study | The Japan Times