Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[t68]

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.

No matter what type of carrier or the size of the carrier, if you use them to their potential space is always going to be at a premium and yes those old style center-line lifts did make it difficult from some of the people who I have talked to.

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.

Whilst I am all for flexibility but at what cost to the core capability of the LHD, whilst troops in contact don’t care who brings in the firepower they want it in a timely manner which the F35 can do in spade’s, someone else wants us to think of these as mini Wasps, the Wasp has larger bunkerage, EO storage and is larger overall still we talk about space being a premium, whilst you F35B is taking up space what do we leave behind in capability that matters to those on the ground.

Everything is a compromise evens the platform of choice I have brought up. If I wanted I could have said we need 4x 75000T CVN strike carriers’ 6x Hyuga ASW helicopter destroyers with 12x MH-60R each plus the 6x LHD on a premises of a two ocean fleet plus the escort for each fleet, but I haven’t. I feel by placing F35 on the Canberra we are over reaching and if we need the capability concurrently we have sold ourselves short.

 

[ASSAIL]

Whilst I am all for flexibility but at what cost to the core capability of the LHD, whilst troops in contact don’t care who brings in the firepower they want it in a timely manner which the F35 can do in spade’s, someone else wants us to think of these as mini Wasps, the Wasp has larger bunkerage, EO storage and is larger overall still we talk about space being a premium, whilst you F35B is taking up space what do we leave behind in capability that matters to those on the ground.

The difference between us is that you consider the LHD capability within the strict constraints of an Amphibious ready Group throughout it's service life.

The alternate proposition is that yes, under the current DCP, your supposition is valid but will it be the same in two decades, in 2035? Who knows but I suggest it may be different.

Both the platform and the F-35B will be in service still, the last tranche of fighters will be purchased and it would be to the ADF's advantage if those were B variants. They are capable of operating off the LHD's and if the govt. needs to demonstrate its force projection capability, for any number of reasons, the ADF needs to implement and practise that capability asap. If all capabilities exist then they can be tailored(engines 101's favorite) to the task needed whether that be amphibious insertion, force projection or ASW
Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

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

I meant Abe as in Abraham Gubler a regular and knowledgeable poster on here, interesting link none the less, thanks.

 

[StobieWan]

There's no comparison between the turnaround time of a CATOBAR carrier of that size and a STOVL one - with CATOBAR, on that size, you can't launch and recover simultaneously - it's one or the other. A ski jump carrier like that, you can get birds in the air as fast as you can taxi them into position and landing them can be done by air taxiing into spots if you're feeling hairy.

If the RAN went the RN route with traffic control rather than the USMC's model, they'd be able to get aircraft in the air and back down faster than you'd imagine (the USMC keeps all aircraft under positive control with an LSO as far as I know, the RN is "spot five, park her fast, we're launching in two..." routine (Engines 101 can probably correct me on that one)

I suspect buying in a F35B alone will be a stretch and at that point, if they're embarked, you're not doing amphib ops because all your bunkers and fuel capacity are configured and devoted to keeping those aircraft going.

It'd be an interesting capability for the RAN but I get the impression it'd prove a distortion to the budget and TO&E.

 

[PeterM]

I am curious, what structural changes would be required in order to build a pure light carrier based on the LHD hull (ie without well deck etc)

 

[hauritz]

I am curious, what structural changes would be required in order to build a pure light carrier based on the LHD hull (ie without well deck etc)

Apart from the other stuff already mentioned such it might not be fast enough to be an effective carrier. I don't know what changes it would need to lift its speed by about 5 to 10 knots. You might have to make some hydrodynamic changes to the actual hull shape.

Fact is that it might be easier to look at an existing design such as the Cavour rather than try to adapt an LHD to the light carrier role.

I would always see this design as being primarily a LHD with a secondary air capability.

 

[Massive]

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).

I am intrigued as to how the JMSDF uses the new, large DDH.

My understanding is that traditionally they have had 8 helicopters for each 8 destroyer escort flotilla.

With the addition of the new DDH have they increased this number or are they operating a greater share of the existing 8 helicopters from the DDH?

Regards,

Massive

 

[alexsa]

Apart from the other stuff already mentioned such it might not be fast enough to be an effective carrier. I don't know what changes it would need to lift its speed by about 5 to 10 knots. You might have to make some hydrodynamic changes to the actual hull shape.

Fact is that it might be easier to look at an existing design such as the Cavour rather than try to adapt an LHD to the light carrier role.

I would always see this design as being primarily a LHD with a secondary air capability.

Max speed of the WASP class is 22 knots so really that should do given it is intended to operate the F35B. The JC1 happily operates AV8B+ at 19 or 21 knots depending on which publicly available page you look at.

Lets face it these ships will be the main body of a group and will not be steaming continuously at 25 knots plus and the limiting factor will be the speed required to launch aircraft.

The Invincible class, which is smaller, could launch Sea Harriers at anchor (and did so at the Bicentennial in Sydney Harbour) but I suspect not at full load.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think the RAN carrier thread there was a compared Cavour and JC1 propulsion. Certainly the JC1 is designed for the speed it has (~20kt) and would be problematic to make it "faster" with pods/engines and hull form etc. Then do we have the escorts that can keep up with it anyway and can we afford/logistics to operate the fleet at that speed at that tempo.

As mentioned the Wasps are similar speed, and don't have a ski-jump and will still be able to operate the F-35B as will the America class, which are essentially purpose built american conventional light carriers.

I actually wouldn't change a thing and just have a JC1 original spec LHD. While 1 specialized carrier would most certainly be (much?) more capable than a LHD my counter argument would be two LHD's would be more capable/available than any specialized carrier we are likely to afford, train, operate (everything below a QE or a America class). Two LHD's with other ships could perform the ARG with a small F-35B component. Having a total of 3 LHD wouldn't warp the whole ADF to support carrier ops (of a sometimes show pony).

But the question might be phrased as what would you give up for that 3rd LHD. Thats a very tough question. That's where you would go back and say do we really need fixed wing aviation at the cost of frigates, OPV, an airbase, army stuff etc..

 

[Joe Black]

But the question might be phrased as what would you give up for that 3rd LHD. Thats a very tough question. That's where you would go back and say do we really need fixed wing aviation at the cost of frigates, OPV, an airbase, army stuff etc..

Good question, I would assume the 3rd LHD will eventually replace HMAS Choules. I think a 3rd LHD makes sense without sacrificing any other surface ships.

 

[Punta74]

Good question, I would assume the 3rd LHD will eventually replace HMAS Choules. I think a 3rd LHD makes sense without sacrificing any other surface ships.

This was initially phase 4C wasn't it? Budget was increased and mentioned that it was "similar cost to 3rd LHD"

Was it ever officially mentioned that phase 4C was choules, or was this an additional procurement ?

 

[StingrayOZ]

This was initially phase 4C wasn't it? Budget was increased and mentioned that it was "similar cost to 3rd LHD"

Was it ever officially mentioned that phase 4C was choules, or was this an additional procurement ?

AFAIK it(3rd LHD) was never in play, before they went with a LHD (ie before the Mistral/JC1 faceoff) and was talk of about 3-4 LPD's and maybe Oz should have gotten 3-4 LPD instead of 2 LHDs. 4c I'm pretty sure didn't have it in mind it, even if the budget was quite large.

 

[Punta74]

Knew I read something : "from wikapedia"

Phase 4C: HMAS Manoora replacement – Strategic Sea Lift capability

Budget for capability increased from $300–$500m to $1–$2b (Note: new budget is about the cost of an LHD)

 

[StingrayOZ]

Knew I read something : "from wikapedia"

Phase 4C: HMAS Manoora replacement – Strategic Sea Lift capability

Budget for capability increased from $300–$500m to $1–$2b (Note: new budget is about the cost of an LHD)

Which I believe is on hold until 2016ish once the LHD's are fully operational. Again this would be something interesting to look for in the new whitepaper.

 

[John Newman]

This was initially phase 4C wasn't it? Budget was increased and mentioned that it was "similar cost to 3rd LHD"

Was it ever officially mentioned that phase 4C was choules, or was this an additional procurement ?

I think at the time, when the budget allowance for 2048 Ph 4C was increased, the suggestion was (from some of the Def Pro's here) that the increase would potentially allow for that ship to be built here in Oz, taking into account the premium that would probably have been required.

It's interesting when you look back at the journey of 4C in numerous DCP's. When the 2011 DCP was released, 4C was still in as a project and the budget allowance had been increased to between $1B-$2B (middle of the band) with an IOC of between 2022 and 2024.

By the time the 2012 DCP had been released, 4C had disappeared as a project, but I think (from memory) the then Government had 'changed' the DCP's in that they only showed future projects up to a certain date, eg, 4C fell outside the scope of that DCP.

When 2013 rolled around the then Gillard Government didn't publish a 2013 DCP to accompany the new DWP.

As for Choules, I remember when she was acquired, various Def Pro's here suggested that she would only stay in service for 5 years or so (till the LHD's were in service), which was probably true at that time, but there is a paragraph in the 2013 DWP (Page 84) stating that: "The capability provided by Choules will now be retained to be a permanent part of the ADF's amphibious capabilities".

If I was going to take a guess what was in the 'then' Government's mind at the time of the 2013 DWP, Choules would continue in service, probably till the late 2020's or so and somewhere down the track a new, or equivalent, 2048 Ph 4C project would be created/reinstated to look at a replacement for Choules / Strategic Sea Lift ship.

I could imagine that was a way of being able to save the $1B-$2B that was originally allocated and use somewhere else in the defence budget, especially since the previous few defence budgets had many billions of dollars cut out of them.

When the current Government produces it new DWP next year, and if there is no mention of 4C or early retirement of Choules, I'd imagine she will just continue in service till normal retirement.

Maybe one day when The Netherlands, Spain and the UK look at replacing their respective Rotterdam, Galicia and Bay Classes, that one of those designs my end up being the Choules / Strategic Sealift ship.

Just my opinion of course!!

 

[StingrayOZ]

Maybe one day when The Netherlands, Spain and the UK look at replacing their respective Rotterdam, Galicia and Bay Classes, that one of those designs my end up being the Choules / Strategic Sealift ship.

Just my opinion of course!!

Thats a pretty good summary as I see it.

Why buy that when you could get another LHD. The LHD can do more than any of those ships, and the strategic lift ships that Singapore, NZ, Indonesia, or contracted ships etc have/can easily fill that lesser role, while no one in our region other than China or the US can fill in with the capabilities that a LHD provides.

The LHD has a modern propulsion system, modern systems, its flexible capabilities mean its worth more than two lesser strategic lift ships. We will be waiting 20+ years to see something come out as nifty as the JC1 IMO.

Again building every day capability navy, army and airforce and plan, train and acquire knowing that we have the capability to deploy that way.

 

[John Newman]

Thats a pretty good summary as I see it.

Why buy that when you could get another LHD. The LHD can do more than any of those ships, and the strategic lift ships that Singapore, NZ, Indonesia, or contracted ships etc have/can easily fill that lesser role, while no one in our region other than China or the US can fill in with the capabilities that a LHD provides.

The LHD has a modern propulsion system, modern systems, its flexible capabilities mean its worth more than two lesser strategic lift ships. We will be waiting 20+ years to see something come out as nifty as the JC1 IMO.

Again building every day capability navy, army and airforce and plan, train and acquire knowing that we have the capability to deploy that way.

I wouldn't disagree for one minute about having a 3rd LHD, one on station, one on standby and one in refit, the rule of three's.

But to have a 3rd LHD does it necessarily mean that a Strategic Sealift / Choules 'type' ship should be sacrificed to achieve that that?

If we look at the RAN's 'lift' capacity for the next little while we'll see LHD's, followed by Choules at the top end and the LCM's at the bottom end, no LCH for the foreseeable future, something is missing.

If you take Choules out of the picture there is an even bigger gap between the top and the bottom.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is to have relevant capabilities that match the various requirements, I've said this before, if you look at the RAAF's lift capability for example, they have C-17's at the very top end and King Airs at the bottom end, but in between there are C-130's, KC-30's, and the soon to enter service C-27's, so depending on what needs to be moved, the RAAF can tailor a capability to the requirement.

Ok, I know that direct comparisons can't necessarily be drawn between the RAAF and the RAN, but I still think there should be capabilities between the very top and the very bottom end.

Again, just my opinion!

 

[StingrayOZ]

I wouldn't disagree for one minute about having a 3rd LHD, one on station, one on standby and one in refit, the rule of three's.

But to have a 3rd LHD does it necessarily mean that a Strategic Sealift / Choules 'type' ship should be sacrificed to achieve that that?

If we look at the RAN's 'lift' capacity for the next little while we'll see LHD's, followed by Choules at the top end and the LCM's at the bottom end, no LCH for the foreseeable future, something is missing.

If you take Choules out of the picture there is an even bigger gap between the top and the bottom.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is to have relevant capabilities that match the various requirements, I've said this before, if you look at the RAAF's lift capability for example, they have C-17's at the very top end and King Airs at the bottom end, but in between there are C-130's, KC-30's, and the soon to enter service C-27's, so depending on what needs to be moved, the RAAF can tailor a capability to the requirement.

Ok, I know that direct comparisons can't necessarily be drawn between the RAAF and the RAN, but I still think there should be capabilities between the very top and the very bottom end.

Again, just my opinion!

There should definitely be sea lift other than the LHD's.

We have Choules, honestly given the money we have spent to get her operational I think no matter what, we will keep her. Do we get more? Well for the same/simular price we can go high end instead of mid range.

The RAAF has fewer hercs now that the C-17s are operational, so there is a reduction in the number of airframes. Also the C-17 showed that money is often better spent ensuring we have high end capability. We upped the number of C-17's partly because with few airframes there would be time when we would have minimal/no C-17 capability.

What we are missing are thinks like the lower end, the smaller landing ships of which we should have 6 in construction. But this is a JC1 thread so I won't talk further about them.

But with 3 LHD's you get that permanent high end capability and the ability to regularly deploy them. You open up humanitarian missions with civilians, F-35B, ASW, larger and more frequent amphibious training and missions, etc.

 

[gf0012-aust]

late comment, but needs to be said anway

There is no comparison between volley rates for CATOBAR and STOBAR

STOL/STOVL even with a ramp assist don't volley off at the same rate
STOL/STOVL (Russian) in the past jump with reduced fuel load and then refuel when the flight forms up - CATOBAR launches at full fuel load and full weapons load.
Because CATOBAR can ripple launch the group forms up faster - and they don't need to refuel to top up after launch on normal duty cycles

CATOBAR packages form up faster, get to the target faster (as a group) and are able to benefit from the launchers being adjusted for type, load, fuel state, headwind, ship speed a lot more easier than any STOBAR can.

With CATOBAR you're going to get nn amount of weapons to target far faster and further than any STOBAR equiv

 

[Engines101]

late comment, but needs to be said anway

There is no comparison between volley rates for CATOBAR and STOBAR

STOL/STOVL even with a ramp assist don't volley off at the same rate
STOL/STOVL (Russian) in the past jump with reduced fuel load and then refuel when the flight forms up - CATOBAR launches at full fuel load and full weapons load.
Because CATOBAR can ripple launch the group forms up faster - and they don't need to refuel to top up after launch on normal duty cycles

CATOBAR packages form up faster, get to the target faster (as a group) and are able to benefit from the launchers being adjusted for type, load, fuel state, headwind, ship speed a lot more easier than any STOBAR can.

With CATOBAR you're going to get nn amount of weapons to target far faster and further than any STOBAR equiv

Aust,

Perhaps I can help here, on the subject of launch rates and effort.

There are three ways of launching fixed wing aviation from ships currently available:

CATOBAR (Basic cat and trap), STOBAR (STO launch up a ramp, conventional arrested landing), and STOVL (STO launch up a ramp, vertical landing). (The last might develop into STORVL (STO, rolling vertical landing) on larger ships).

Using the more commonly understood term 'launch rates', a CATOBAR ship can launch one aircraft per catapult about every 60/70 seconds or so - with a very highly trained crew. (the catapult launch evolution is complex). The total launch rate is then driven by numbers of catapults. If you have a 95,000 ton CVN, they will usually have three of their four catapults operational. So you should be able to launch around three aircraft per minute. On anything under that (e.g. CDG), you will launch just about two per minute, as there are only two catapults. You will need around 250 people to be able to do this.

STOBAR - the only ships to date that have used this have two launch stations at the bottom of the ramp, with aircraft taking turns to launch. The aircraft are positioned on the deck, then held by retractable 'chocks' while they run up. I can only guess what the rates for feeding aircraft to the launch spots are, but I'd guess about one per minute. So, about two per minute launch rate. Not more than 50/60 people needed, at a very rough guess. You are right on the money over launch weights, by the way - I would expect a STOBAR launch with any weapons to be followed by a fast trip to a tanker (which I don't think are yet able to be launched from the ship).

STOVL - aircraft taxy forward on to the centreline, stop at a given distance, undergo a few checks, then launch up the ramp. This can be a fast and efficient evolution, with aircraft going around every 20 seconds. About 20 people are needed to do it. I know this, because I have done it many times as the Air Engineer Officer clearing the aircraft for launch. So, about three per minute. The new QE class should be able to do it as fast, if not faster. Moreover, STOVL launches can be, were and are adjusted for load, fuel state, wind over deck, etc. This adjustment is carried out by varying the length of the deck run and changing the angles of the vectored thrust systems after launch. It's much easier than the complex calculations and mechanical adjustments needed for a catapult launch.

I can say without hesitation that a STOVL ship can get its fixed wing aircraft launched as quickly, if not faster, than a CATOBAR ship. And by the way, they can recover aircraft more quickly than a CATOBAR ship can.

However, I don't for one minute want to anyone to think I'm saying that a STOVL launch of 10 smaller STOVL aircraft from a (say) 28,000 ton ship is in any way equivalent in overall mass and effect to a 30/40 conventional aircraft launch from a CVN. Plainly, it's not. But I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that STOVL is a replacement for CATOBAR. I'm certainly not.

However, I do think it's clear that CATOBAR is the exclusive preserve of the USN, and likely to stay that way for some time, purely on cost grounds. The US is the only country on earth that can afford ships of this size, the numbers of people to man them, and the cost of the training to deliver a usable capability.

In my view, STOVL allows fixed wing aviation to be delivered from smaller (and cheaper) ships. Individual countries have to decide whether the amount of capability STOVL can deliver from their ships is a) what they want and b) affordable.

Hope this helps

Best Regards

Engines101