Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[gf0012-aust]

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

I'm not dismissing the capacity and capability of STOL - but I do get grumpy when the debate tries to twist the justification into x vs y

I must confess to using russian STOL lessons as well
The USN had some data published re CATOBAR and STOL trying to put nn amount of ord on a given target - against a non refueled mission in a predetermined range ring - and where refueling to target might also be called upon, that was then determined against organic refueling (buddys) and the with land based air as an alternative

the sortie rates for STOBAR were pretty ugly in comparison

The french did have decent tempo for their rafales on deGaulle - so it would be interesting to see data on a CdG sized platform and its air wing against the largest STOBAR equiv (which makes it incredibly theoretical)

some of the assumptions being made in here earlier were completely divorced from the known limitations of various platforms.

thanks for the extra tech detail - greatly appreciated

 

[Engines101]

Aust,

Thanks for coming back. I, too, can admit to wanting to get 'grumpy' when people try to twist facts into a sort of schoolyard 'x versus y' debate.

I'm familiar with the USN stuff on CATOBAR vs STOL, and good stuff it was. However, my view is that in the real world, for all but the USN and possibly the Chinese, there is no viable option of having a CVN type CATOBAR equipped fleet, on pure affordability grounds.

The CdG was looked at in some detail by the UK on its (winding) way to the QEC, and the cost/effectiveness sums for a smaller nuclear powered CATOBAR carrier were about as ugly as the US had predicted back in the 1970s, whey they looked at smaller carriers. There's a reason the French only have one carrier, and it's the massive cost of CdG.

Sortie rates from CdG were good in the recent Libya campaign, but were not significantly better than the rates the RN could achieve (and sustain) from the smaller 'Invincibles'.

You make an excellent and not generally well publicised point about the actual capability achieved by STOBAR. Unless you can vector the thrust so as to be able to launch at well below wing borne flying speeds, a STOBAR launch will always be at weights well below MGTOW, which means trading fuel, weapons, or both.

F-35B should be launching off a ramp at over 55,000 pounds (I can't be more specific in a public thread) , which is a very healthy weight budget for many missions. It's not the 75,000 pounds the USN can throw off a catapult, but it's not trying to be.

One other point: STOVL operations are less susceptible to sea states than either CATOBAR or STOBAR. The UK operated aircraft in sea states that were well beyond the capability of 'cat and trap' ops.

In truth, any and all platforms have limitations of one sort or another. All the user can do is make the best of what they have when they have it. Hope this helps,

Best Regards

Engines101

 

[Volkodav]

Basically where the RAN is concerned its STOVL or STORVL off the Canberra's and / or some other small to medium platform(s) acquired down the track. That is the reality of the situation, its the F-35B or nothing and due to economics there will likely never be any huge strike heavy air groups.

 

[Bonza]

Engines101,

Thanks very much for your offerings thus far, especially in this thread. The detail and effort is greatly appreciated by myself and many others - in particular those of us attempting to put certain metrics in context (sortie rates, launch weights, crewing requirements etc) so as to gain a better understanding of the overall topic/discussion. So, cheers for all the valuable contributions.

- Bonza

 

[Engines101]

Bonza,

Thanks for your kind words. The issue of how much 'aviation' you can get out of a ship of a certain size (and sustain it for an effective period of time), and be able to do it in all weathers, day and night, is a complex one, with no easy answers.

There are few reliable references, many variables, and even more opinions. What is fairly clear is that designing, building and operating naval aircraft and aircraft capable ships is a complex business. The prize is an extremely adaptable, flexible and politically highly useful capability.

For what it's worth, my take is that the main factors in delivering effective maritime aviation are, in no particular order:

1. Key enabling technologies such as catapults, or STOVL.
2. Military expertise in the special arts of 'naval aviation'. These are vital to deliver the required capability safely, efficiently and effectively.
3. Political will ( if this is present, funds will follow) accompanied by a genuine military need

Once these are present, it's then just a matter of using what you have to best effect.

Best regards

Engines101

 

[gf0012-aust]

For what it's worth, my take is that the main factors in delivering effective maritime aviation are, in no particular order:

1. Key enabling technologies such as catapults, or STOVL.
2. Military expertise in the special arts of 'naval aviation'. These are vital to deliver the required capability safely, efficiently and effectively.
3. Political will ( if this is present, funds will follow) accompanied by a genuine military need

Once these are present, it's then just a matter of using what you have to best effect.

there's the rub

unfort in this country there seems to be a tendency for force planning and force development to be hijacked by the good ideas fairies with a rolling barrage of thought bubbles - and depending on which party is in power, whether its driven by industry or "aspirationalists"

political will and intent is a precocious and fickle beast
the military requirement will always be pruned so as to reinforce who is in control

 

[oldsig127]

there's the rub

unfort in this country there seems to be a tendency for force planning and force development to be hijacked by the good ideas fairies with a rolling barrage of thought bubbles -

Not only a political issue though. This entire thread has seen a rolling barrage of though bubbles which while interesting don't have much real world relevance.

An instruction to Defence to *consider* what potential benefits might accrue if follow up F-35 purchases (a LONG way out) were F-35B types, and whether the cost/benefits hold up, has led to speculation that if we buy them we need a *real* aircraft carrier.

Purely personal opinion (I am not immune) is that ANY specialist naval aviation resource is an vanishingly small odds to be sonsidered, much less purchased.

The thinking is surely, that IF we had F-35B and IF RAAF was happy with the benefit of being usefull from less than full airbase sites an extra benefit might be that in extremis they MIGHT be used from the LHDs in the same way that the UK used RAF Harrier GR.3 during the Falklands. There are plenty of costs against the idea as far as RAAF is concerned without asking for an extra billion or three for a ship, just in complicating parts inventory, training and so forth.

oldsig

 

[gf0012-aust]

Not only a political issue though. This entire thread has seen a rolling barrage of though bubbles which while interesting don't have much real world relevance.

An instruction to Defence to *consider* what potential benefits might accrue if follow up F-35 purchases (a LONG way out) were F-35B types, and whether the cost/benefits hold up, has led to speculation that if we buy them we need a *real* aircraft carrier.

Purely personal opinion (I am not immune) is that ANY specialist naval aviation resource is an vanishingly small odds to be sonsidered, much less purchased.

The thinking is surely, that IF we had F-35B and IF RAAF was happy with the benefit of being usefull from less than full airbase sites an extra benefit might be that in extremis they MIGHT be used from the LHDs in the same way that the UK used RAF Harrier GR.3 during the Falklands. There are plenty of costs against the idea as far as RAAF is concerned without asking for an extra billion or three for a ship, just in complicating parts inventory, training and so forth.

oldsig

agree. unfort ministerial thought bubbles are being viewed by some on the outside as "opportunities in waiting" - nothing could be further from the truth IMO

add another couple of billion in the necessary costs to run a support fleet and the assoc costs to maintain - and those costs won't drop even if JSF jumpers get RAAF serial numbers

 

[RobWilliams]

It's one of those things which a potential platform is being included in a review in the name of thoroughness and having access to all information to base the conclusions of the review rather than an indication that it's a real alternative.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's one of those things which a potential platform is being included in a review in the name of thoroughness and having access to all information to base the conclusions of the review rather than an indication that it's a real alternative.

except that its all been done before - numerous times

this kind of idiocy is what sets the hares running

 

[Volkodav]

I've been pushing the DDH line for years, ever since I first heard of Japans Hyugas and it has nothing to do with the F-35B, although if 28 were added to the ADFs order of battle I wouldn't object to some being deployed by the DDHs.

The idea of a through deck DDH is to increase the capability and flexibility of the fleets helicopters through providing the ability to surge aircraft as well as to provide improved deeper level maintence and support while at sea. The ability to carry additional aircraft also makes the embarkation of MCM and AEW helicopters possible.

 

[ngatimozart]

I've been pushing the DDH line for years, ever since I first heard of Japans Hyugas and it has nothing to do with the F-35B, although if 28 were added to the ADFs order of battle I wouldn't object to some being deployed by the DDHs.

The idea of a through deck DDH is to increase the capability and flexibility of the fleets helicopters through providing the ability to surge aircraft as well as to provide improved deeper level maintence and support while at sea. The ability to carry additional aircraft also makes the embarkation of MCM and AEW helicopters possible.

Volk would you go with this class or the Izumo class which are another 51m longer and 5,450 tonnes more displacement unladen? Personally if we ever had the money I could see the use for a Hyuga class in the RNZN both in a ASW / Amphib role as well as a HADR role. Actually it would go very well in a HADR role and be exactly what I think Mr C would like in a HADR role. However no money and no political will across this side of the Tasman.

 

[Volkodav]

Volk would you go with this class or the Izumo class which are another 51m longer and 5,450 tonnes more displacement unladen? Personally if we ever had the money I could see the use for a Hyuga class in the RNZN both in a ASW / Amphib role as well as a HADR role. Actually it would go very well in a HADR role and be exactly what I think Mr C would like in a HADR role. However no money and no political will across this side of the Tasman.

Definitely the Izumo larger and cheaper than the Hyuga. They have sacrificed the VLS and VLASROC but their extra size dramatically increases their flexibility and capability.

 

[swerve]

Hyuuga is fast, equipped for local area air defence, & lacks cargo & troop space. It'd need a lot of modifications to make it a good amphib.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hyuuga is fast, equipped for local area air defence, & lacks cargo & troop space. It'd need a lot of modifications to make it a good amphib.

Which is why the Japanese are considering something like a Wasp amphibious ship.

If your after a multi purpose ship the JC1 seems to be head and shoulders above others in that area, in that is an amphib that can operate fixed wing (only harriers proven at this stage). I would think Cavour would have more amphibious capability than Hyuga and Izumo can carry 400 troops and some light trucks (no tanks?). But the 325 on Cavour or 400 on Izumo is a long way short of the ~1,200+ odd they intend to cram into Canberra.

While I would not doubt the JC1 design is more limiting in carrier operations than say Cavour, in amphibious operations its 3-4 times more effective. Carrying nearly a 1000 extra personnel, twice as many tanks as Cavour and with the dock can deploy that quickly etc.

As the Americans have found out its better to have a dock on a Amphib than seal it up and use it for hanger space.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of looking at the F-35B and the Canberra class.

 

[t68]

Personally if we ever had the money I could see the use for a Hyuga class in the RNZN both in a ASW / Amphib role as well as a HADR role. Actually it would go very well in a HADR role and be exactly what I think Mr C would like in a HADR role..

It appears to me that from your suggestion of the needs of the RNZN it could do with a combined New Zealand/Singapore build of the Endurance 160 or perhaps the smaller version of Canberra the Athlas 13000

Update: Singapore considers larger amphibious ships - IHS Jane's 360

Endurance-160 LHD | Temasek Thunderbolt

http://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/uploads/JCI_en_v2.pdf

Tried to upload a pdf file on the 160 but apparently the file is too large for DT

 

[Volkodav]

Which is why the Japanese are considering something like a Wasp amphibious ship.

If your after a multi purpose ship the JC1 seems to be head and shoulders above others in that area, in that is an amphib that can operate fixed wing (only harriers proven at this stage). I would think Cavour would have more amphibious capability than Hyuga and Izumo can carry 400 troops and some light trucks (no tanks?). But the 325 on Cavour or 400 on Izumo is a long way short of the ~1,200+ odd they intend to cram into Canberra.

While I would not doubt the JC1 design is more limiting in carrier operations than say Cavour, in amphibious operations its 3-4 times more effective. Carrying nearly a 1000 extra personnel, twice as many tanks as Cavour and with the dock can deploy that quickly etc.

As the Americans have found out its better to have a dock on a Amphib than seal it up and use it for hanger space.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of looking at the F-35B and the Canberra class.

I am suggesting Hyuga / Izumo type DDHs in place of some of the ANZAC replacements, not instead of the Canberra's, as we already have the Canberra's .

 

[t68]

I am suggesting Hyuga / Izumo type DDHs in place of some of the ANZAC replacements, not instead of the Canberra's, as we already have the Canberra's .

would rather much see a Absalon-class support ship type ship set up to support the Anzac replacement and LHD which would provide enhanced land attack capability and have the ability to support 2x CB90-class fast assault craft, would also accommodation for up to 100 for either SASR,CDO or CDT

https://web.archive.org/web/20140314145730/http://casr.ca/mp-dorschner-rcn-absalon-ddh.htm

 

[hauritz]

would rather much see a Absalon-class support ship type ship set up to support the Anzac replacement and LHD which would provide enhanced land attack capability and have the ability to support 2x CB90-class fast assault craft, would also accommodation for up to 100 for either SASR,CDO or CDT

https://web.archive.org/web/20140314145730/http://casr.ca/mp-dorschner-rcn-absalon-ddh.htm

I agree ... Australia's navy is stretched at the moment and we need ships that can handle multiple tasks. The Absalon would be even more useful for NZ.

 

[t68]

I agree ... Australia's navy is stretched at the moment and we need ships that can handle multiple tasks. The Absalon would be even more useful for NZ.

would be interesting to see if infact Canada build the modified Absalons and arrangement in place for them to build 3x for the RAN and Australia build 3x oilers to replace their Protecteur class auxiliary oil replenishment ships or even Victoria-class submarines replacements, but I suspect it would too difficult for those in power to get right