Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[t68]

Regardless if we used Canberra, s as claytons carriers or not, wouldn't there be some merit in aquiring some F35B, s anyway?
The flexibility of using, just about any road surface as a potential airstrip would give the RAAF flexibility in our region, and basing the aircraft closer to the AO would take pressure from the refuelers to some degree, and if, in the future a purpose built carrier was aquired, the air element is already in the system. Just a thought if numbers were pushed up to 96 to 100.
Mabe considered a waste of time, just thinking there could be some merit in having the B, s in the orbat.

Agree F35B would provide a certain amount of flexibility for such things like a FARP, but to gain that type of flex ability requires Army to have more resources to bring forward and protect fuel bladders pumps etc it not insurmountable but more CH47 to move the heavy gear. Can C27J pump fuel whilst stationary like the A400M using the planes own engines?

 

[StingrayOZ]

A fact lost amongst the hyperbole.

Days at sea exercising the ability to launch and recover mud movers are days lost to the true reason these ships were purchased in the first place.

Which is really the main issue and the strongest argument. Not that the JC1 have zero carrier capability, or the F-35B is flawed and terrible, it is that acquisition of F-35B in the current situation would mean effectively dumping the idea of an amphibious force.

The amphibious need so massively outstrips carrier need. Even attempting a F-35B operation with 3 LHD's is fairly pointless, because it would still significantly degrade the ability to work up an amphibious force and operations.

I think the F-35B is an amazing aircraft, with huge capabilities, but not right now and not off the LHD's.

 

[ADMk2]

Regardless if we used Canberra, s as claytons carriers or not, wouldn't there be some merit in aquiring some F35B, s anyway?
The flexibility of using, just about any road surface as a potential airstrip would give the RAAF flexibility in our region, and basing the aircraft closer to the AO would take pressure from the refuelers to some degree, and if, in the future a purpose built carrier was aquired, the air element is already in the system. Just a thought if numbers were pushed up to 96 to 100.
Mabe considered a waste of time, just thinking there could be some merit in having the B, s in the orbat.

If we weren't using B's to fly off naval vessels, then I don't think the added cost of that aircraft compared to the additional capability the -A provides is a good tradeoff. I get they 'could' be used at some point off a naval vessel but that seems a rather adhoc way of doing things and in the meantime they provide significantly less capability than an -A model in the RAAF's primary role of providing air combat capability, at significantly increased cost.

I think as others have mentioned here, if we're going to have a legitimate naval air combat capability, then we need a purpose-built ship, at least one AWD dedicated as an escort for it, at least one dedicated oiler / resupply ship and a dedicated airwing, including additional MH-60R Romeos to provide a stronger ASW screen for this high value target and to provide rescue capability for 'downed' aircrew.

All this is going to cost a ton and will require manning levels to be significantly increased. I can't see us getting out of it for under about $12b in upfront costs and tremendous support costs, which is why it isn't on the radar...

 

[StingrayOZ]

All this is going to cost a ton and will require manning levels to be significantly increased. I can't see us getting out of it for under about $12b in upfront costs and tremendous support costs, which is why it isn't on the radar...

Getting 28 B's instead of A's would add ~$1 billion. Then ~30% higher operating rate. I would imagine then you would have more crewing and manning costs operating at a remote base or sea than on a land base.

I disagree that it would cost $12b to get to a basic usable capability, A 4th AWD was previously planned, and would be at the cost of replacement frigate numbers. A AOR capability is required anyway and we should have 3 ships just to do what we want today. We should have ASW capability anyway. However, at this stage I think we should wait and see what comes out of the future frigate. We are no rush to buy more F-35's than the 72 we have already committed to. (we have the super hornets to cover any gap we might have). Just push the decision on the 28 far into the future when they will be cheaper, we will have many other projects completed, and the situation in the region will be clearer.

Useful capability may be had for a mere ~$6billion. Its worth seriously looking at what would be required. Not to then go out and acquire it, but to clearly state what would be required and why we aren't seeking them. Not just for Australian domestic media and voters, but for the region. However if we ever needed it, we would have a plan on the shelf to acquire them. We can aquire things that don't exclude a carrier. For example the AOR should have significant JP5 capability.

I think the biggest argument against carriers is that they are essentially for high intensity conflicts all that money, people and material for high level stuff (IMO). It why IMO only the US has really funded carriers, as that no one else would be able to keep them purposefully occupied.

While the amphibious ships fill a range of roles so much better, the only role they don't do well, is full blown carrier. Your diplomatic and military options are much more layered. But of course with only two ships, purely in amphibious roles, we will be tight to get our amphibious aspirations off the ground (or out to sea as it were).

 

[Engines101]

Perhaps I can help here.

The discussions here seem to be tending towards the lines expressed in the recent ASPI paper, which I'd summarise as:

LHD/F-35B can't be a 'true carrier'
Time spent on F-35B off LHD would detract from the LHD's main role
It won't be effective anyway
If you want fixed wing aircraft at sea the only answer is a USN sized carrier
The ADF can do without it

I'll try to address those. First point is true, if you think the only effective carrier is a great big one. But it's not true. The RN and the USMC have shown time and again the difference a small ship delivering STOVL air direct to the fight. The future for sea based fixed wing, unless you are USN or China (and possibly India) is going to be F-35B on ships of various sizes, all smaller than CVNs. In my view (and I know others will disagree) the ADF has a chance to gain this capability.

Yes, time spent on F-35B ops would 'detract' from the 'main role'. But things change. Roles change. STOVL is not anywhere near as hard to set up at sea as cat and trap. But it's a balance, and I agree that the sums and the assessments have to be done on how the LHD time would be sliced up. But saying 'we can't do it because we musn't change our plans' is about the weakest argument against the idea.

Effectiveness - I honestly don't think some here on this thread understand just how effective a smallish force of F-35Bs, in there right place, could be. Or how limited land based air at long ranges actually is. Let's put it like this - if the LHD force is, say, 300 miles from land based air, just how many aircraft do you think a land based F-35A force could put over the fleet on a 24 hour basis? Possibly 2, even if they had the tanker capacity, which they don't. Combat duration over the fleet measured in tens of minutes. Time to react to a threat? Those 48 hour ATO planning cycles mean the fleet will have to make do with what's been planned, not what they might need. (And I speak as a survivor of the cold war when the RN was promised that a whole (large) squadron of RAF Phantoms would provide fleet air defence. It ran out around 90 miles off the UK coast). Now think of 6 F-35Bs on the LHD deck, at an 'alert 3' posture for air defence or strike missions. Oh, and look up some of the sums for just how huge the costs are for maintaining constant combat air presence at these sort of ranges.

Again, for clarity - the answer is no longer the huge ship, unless you are a superpower. STOVL and ships like the LHD offer a smaller player the chance to put real combat power (not to mention a fairly awesome ISTAR asset) where it's needed, not where it has to be based.

Does the ADF need it? Don't know, has to be their call. But they need to reflect on the vital roles sea based fixed wing air has played in campaign after campaign over the past 35 years. They need to look at just how frequently Host Nation Support (HNS) has been withdrawn for land based aircraft (the answer, by the way, is very). They need to have a realistic threat scenario which includes a proper assessment of air threats to a surface task force.

And finally, if the argument against F-35B on board is 'we would never plan to put an ADF task force where it can't have 24 hour cover from land based air', then get ready for some short and limited duration deployments.

The one line I very much agree with is that the ADF has time to look at this properly. The Australian buy of 70 odd F-35As is large and should meet RAAF requirements for some time. Let's make sure that a properly constituted panel of experts takes an objective look at this. The UK has (sadly) shown what happens when Defence Reviews are rushed and then hijacked by singe service politics. And sea based fixed wing is, make no mistake, always a hugely (inter service) political issue.

Best Regards

Engines101

 

[ASSAIL]

Perhaps I can help here.

The discussions here seem to be tending towards the lines expressed in the recent ASPI paper, which I'd summarise as:

LHD/F-35B can't be a 'true carrier'
Time spent on F-35B off LHD would detract from the LHD's main role
It won't be effective anyway
If you want fixed wing aircraft at sea the only answer is a USN sized carrier
The ADF can do without it

I'll try to address those. First point is true, if you think the only effective carrier is a great big one. But it's not true. The RN and the USMC have shown time and again the difference a small ship delivering STOVL air direct to the fight. The future for sea based fixed wing, unless you are USN or China (and possibly India) is going to be F-35B on ships of various sizes, all smaller than CVNs. In my view (and I know others will disagree) the ADF has a chance to gain this capability.

Yes, time spent on F-35B ops would 'detract' from the 'main role'. But things change. Roles change. STOVL is not anywhere near as hard to set up at sea as cat and trap. But it's a balance, and I agree that the sums and the assessments have to be done on how the LHD time would be sliced up. But saying 'we can't do it because we musn't change our plans' is about the weakest argument against the idea.

Effectiveness - I honestly don't think some here on this thread understand just how effective a smallish force of F-35Bs, in there right place, could be. Or how limited land based air at long ranges actually is. Let's put it like this - if the LHD force is, say, 300 miles from land based air, just how many aircraft do you think a land based F-35A force could put over the fleet on a 24 hour basis? Possibly 2, even if they had the tanker capacity, which they don't. Combat duration over the fleet measured in tens of minutes. Time to react to a threat? Those 48 hour ATO planning cycles mean the fleet will have to make do with what's been planned, not what they might need. (And I speak as a survivor of the cold war when the RN was promised that a whole (large) squadron of RAF Phantoms would provide fleet air defence. It ran out around 90 miles off the UK coast). Now think of 6 F-35Bs on the LHD deck, at an 'alert 3' posture for air defence or strike missions. Oh, and look up some of the sums for just how huge the costs are for maintaining constant combat air presence at these sort of ranges.

Again, for clarity - the answer is no longer the huge ship, unless you are a superpower. STOVL and ships like the LHD offer a smaller player the chance to put real combat power (not to mention a fairly awesome ISTAR asset) where it's needed, not where it has to be based.

Does the ADF need it? Don't know, has to be their call. But they need to reflect on the vital roles sea based fixed wing air has played in campaign after campaign over the past 35 years. They need to look at just how frequently Host Nation Support (HNS) has been withdrawn for land based aircraft (the answer, by the way, is very). They need to have a realistic threat scenario which includes a proper assessment of air threats to a surface task force.

And finally, if the argument against F-35B on board is 'we would never plan to put an ADF task force where it can't have 24 hour cover from land based air', then get ready for some short and limited duration deployments.

The one line I very much agree with is that the ADF has time to look at this properly. The Australian buy of 70 odd F-35As is large and should meet RAAF requirements for some time. Let's make sure that a properly constituted panel of experts takes an objective look at this. The UK has (sadly) shown what happens when Defence Reviews are rushed and then hijacked by singe service politics. And sea based fixed wing is, make no mistake, always a hugely (inter service) political issue.

Best Regards

Engines101

Thank you Engines, although I don't wish to extend this debate ad nauseum (it sometimes regresses into fantasy, you have encapsulated my thoughts far more eloquently than I have been able to.
Let's hope the capability planners keep these sentiments alive until an appropriate time for action and that will be after both the RAN and the RAAF have had time to bed down their new F 35A and LHD capabilities.

 

[t68]

Perhaps I can help here.

The discussions here seem to be tending towards the lines expressed in the recent ASPI paper, which I'd summarise as:

LHD/F-35B can't be a 'true carrier'
Time spent on F-35B off LHD would detract from the LHD's main role
It won't be effective anyway
If you want fixed wing aircraft at sea the only answer is a USN sized carrier
The ADF can do without it

I'll try to address those. First point is true, if you think the only effective carrier is a great big one. But it's not true. The RN and the USMC have shown time and again the difference a small ship delivering STOVL air direct to the fight. The future for sea based fixed wing, unless you are USN or China (and possibly India) is going to be F-35B on ships of various sizes, all smaller than CVNs. In my view (and I know others will disagree) the ADF has a chance to gain this capability.

Yes, time spent on F-35B ops would 'detract' from the 'main role'. But things change. Roles change. STOVL is not anywhere near as hard to set up at sea as cat and trap. But it's a balance, and I agree that the sums and the assessments have to be done on how the LHD time would be sliced up. But saying 'we can't do it because we musn't change our plans' is about the weakest argument against the idea.

Effectiveness - I honestly don't think some here on this thread understand just how effective a smallish force of F-35Bs, in there right place, could be. Or how limited land based air at long ranges actually is. Let's put it like this - if the LHD force is, say, 300 miles from land based air, just how many aircraft do you think a land based F-35A force could put over the fleet on a 24 hour basis? Possibly 2, even if they had the tanker capacity, which they don't. Combat duration over the fleet measured in tens of minutes. Time to react to a threat? Those 48 hour ATO planning cycles mean the fleet will have to make do with what's been planned, not what they might need. (And I speak as a survivor of the cold war when the RN was promised that a whole (large) squadron of RAF Phantoms would provide fleet air defence. It ran out around 90 miles off the UK coast). Now think of 6 F-35Bs on the LHD deck, at an 'alert 3' posture for air defence or strike missions. Oh, and look up some of the sums for just how huge the costs are for maintaining constant combat air presence at these sort of ranges.

Again, for clarity - the answer is no longer the huge ship, unless you are a superpower. STOVL and ships like the LHD offer a smaller player the chance to put real combat power (not to mention a fairly awesome ISTAR asset) where it's needed, not where it has to be based.

Does the ADF need it? Don't know, has to be their call. But they need to reflect on the vital roles sea based fixed wing air has played in campaign after campaign over the past 35 years. They need to look at just how frequently Host Nation Support (HNS) has been withdrawn for land based aircraft (the answer, by the way, is very). They need to have a realistic threat scenario which includes a proper assessment of air threats to a surface task force.

And finally, if the argument against F-35B on board is 'we would never plan to put an ADF task force where it can't have 24 hour cover from land based air', then get ready for some short and limited duration deployments.

The one line I very much agree with is that the ADF has time to look at this properly. The Australian buy of 70 odd F-35As is large and should meet RAAF requirements for some time. Let's make sure that a properly constituted panel of experts takes an objective look at this. The UK has (sadly) shown what happens when Defence Reviews are rushed and then hijacked by singe service politics. And sea based fixed wing is, make no mistake, always a hugely (inter service) political issue.

Best Regards

Engines101

No one doubts that the Canberra class LHD can handle the F35B with modifications, but it comes down to numbers, we only have to two and I believe we are asking too much of the capability. Sure for the first few years both vessels should be readily available but once these platforms have to go into deeper maintenance or unforeseen breakdowns we will be limited to the one platform. One also has to take into account F35B even if we do get them they won’t materialise to the later 2020`s.

I doubt anyone here seriously suggest that suggests that we need a Ford Class carrier, whilst a cat & trap carrier would be ideal for the support functions such as E2D Hawkeye using the Queen Elizabeth class as the underlining basis of that, but we also need to be realistic. Two standalone ASW carriers of such as the Italian Cavour would be the most logical choice as they also have a secondary function as an amphibious assault much like the new America class, my vision would be 18x F35B for the RAN and 24x F35B for the RAAF, this guarantees 9x F35B which would be flown by the RAN fulltime off the ASW carriers along with support aircraft such as the MH-60R, the RAAF aircraft enlarge the air group when needed but also does not tie it to fulltime, As Assail has suggested these aircraft can be moved forward deploy as part of a FARP which then leaves the RAN aircraft on-board providing escort to the task group. As you have said it’s the ADF call on do we need this capability if the answer is yes than put them on their own asset but the capability needs to be 3x LHD & 2x ASW carriers, or as has been discussed before 4x LHD with one rotating as the fulltime fixed wing deck.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Another weigh in on the Bs on LHDs from a knowledgeable source. It is good to see some claims other than 'it can't be done' for XYZ reasons. The White Paper may reveal more about the 'ease of fitting Bs on LHDs'. I can happily accept that any special RAN Fixed Wing is dead with some salt water DNA injection into the crabs via Willytown exchanges. It is sad to know that STOVL experienced former A4G personnel are not employed to help out with the White Paper (I'm not one of those of course). Perhaps that can be remedied easily. Binny knows about A4Gs.

F-35 strike fighters for the Canberra-class? 24 Nov 2014 David Baddams

F-35 strike fighters for the Canberra-class? | Australian Naval Institute

 

[aussienscale]

Another weigh in on the Bs on LHDs from a knowledgeable source. It is good to see some claims other than 'it can't be done' for XYZ reasons. The White Paper may reveal more about the 'ease of fitting Bs on LHDs'. I can happily accept that any special RAN Fixed Wing is dead with some salt water DNA injection into the crabs via Willytown exchanges. It is sad to know that STOVL experienced former A4G personnel are not employed to help out with the White Paper (I'm not one of those of course). Perhaps that can be remedied easily. Binny knows about A4Gs.

F-35 strike fighters for the Canberra-class? 24 Nov 2014 David Baddams

F-35 strike fighters for the Canberra-class? | Australian Naval Institute

Already posted in the RAN thread, it is a good read, he also had a good submission to the Defence White Paper, Link below

http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/docs/082-Baddams.pdf

Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

Getting 28 B's instead of A's would add ~$1 billion. Then ~30% higher operating rate. I would imagine then you would have more crewing and manning costs operating at a remote base or sea than on a land base.

I disagree that it would cost $12b to get to a basic usable capability, A 4th AWD was previously planned, and would be at the cost of replacement frigate numbers. A AOR capability is required anyway and we should have 3 ships just to do what we want today. We should have ASW capability anyway. However, at this stage I think we should wait and see what comes out of the future frigate. We are no rush to buy more F-35's than the 72 we have already committed to. (we have the super hornets to cover any gap we might have). Just push the decision on the 28 far into the future when they will be cheaper, we will have many other projects completed, and the situation in the region will be clearer.

Useful capability may be had for a mere ~$6billion. Its worth seriously looking at what would be required. Not to then go out and acquire it, but to clearly state what would be required and why we aren't seeking them. Not just for Australian domestic media and voters, but for the region. However if we ever needed it, we would have a plan on the shelf to acquire them. We can aquire things that don't exclude a carrier. For example the AOR should have significant JP5 capability.

I think the biggest argument against carriers is that they are essentially for high intensity conflicts all that money, people and material for high level stuff (IMO). It why IMO only the US has really funded carriers, as that no one else would be able to keep them purposefully occupied.

While the amphibious ships fill a range of roles so much better, the only role they don't do well, is full blown carrier. Your diplomatic and military options are much more layered. But of course with only two ships, purely in amphibious roles, we will be tight to get our amphibious aspirations off the ground (or out to sea as it were).

That was a 'back of the page' numbers based on a dedicated carrier, the fleet, a dedicated AWD escort, dedicated MH-60R's and a dedicated oiler, if we were to do the carrier thing 'properly'.

If we just fly a handful of -B's off our existing ships it will be much cheaper obviously.

 

[StingrayOZ]

That was a 'back of the page' numbers based on a dedicated carrier, the fleet, a dedicated AWD escort, dedicated MH-60R's and a dedicated oiler, if we were to do the carrier thing 'properly'.

If we just fly a handful of -B's off our existing ships it will be much cheaper obviously.

It seemed to be more of a maximum number and treating as each item as if only for a carrier. I don't see the need for an Australian carrier to operate separately from the LHD and the LHD escorts for example. I don't think anyone is really pushing for that.

I think you can do it right for a lot less than $12 billion. You could easily spend less than $6 billion and have very significant carrier capability. Capability just behind the UK for example.

With the JC1 design, any navy operating it really doesn't have a need for a dedicated carrier. Which is why its so ideal for mid sized nations. Its multiroled.

However with Multiroled you need the hull numbers to take advantage of it. 2 is not enough.

Hypothetically imagine a navy with say 3 or 4 x JC1's. Imagine how they could balance resources between amphibious operations and carrier operations. If for what ever reason you needed more capability, you just deploy another ship in what ever role you need. Once your all operational and trained up, you have a perfect sliding scale where you have a great deal of flexibility. Need to deploy 3,000 army personnel in an amphibious assault? You can do that. Need two carriers operating ~24 F-35B's jointly? You can do that. Need ~2000 soldiers and some F-35B's, you can do that too. Deploy two LHD separately for HADR type operations. Bang, you have it, train it, sustain it. You can fit in with what ever your allies can bring to the table. US carrier, go pure amphib. US Amphib, go pure carrier. Your not paying a great deal for wasted capability.

In such a navy it is harder to say "pure carrier functions cost x" as the resources and capability are shared. You just have total shared capability. There are some costs that a pure carrier, but they are much smaller. If you look at it from this perspective, it could cost less than a billion.

 

[ASSAIL]

I was looking for some info for Canberra's commissioning and fell across this repot for "The Age". Probably the most ignorant piece of journalistic buffoonery I've ever seen, how his editor let this bloke loose is beyond me, no wonder journalists have a bad name. Look and let your eyes bleed. I want to say he was trying to be funny but sadly not so, he should have been reporting from a pre-school.

All aboard HMAS Canberra, the Royal Australian Navy's biggest ship

 

[John Fedup]

I was looking for some info for Canberra's commissioning and fell across this repot for "The Age". Probably the most ignorant piece of journalistic buffoonery I've ever seen, how his editor let this bloke loose is beyond me, no wonder journalists have a bad name. Look and let your eyes bleed. I want to say he was trying to be funny but sadly not so, he should have been reporting from a pre-school.

All aboard HMAS Canberra, the Royal Australian Navy's biggest ship

This guy likely studied journalism in Canada with a major in defence matters.

 

[ngatimozart]

I was looking for some info for Canberra's commissioning and fell across this repot for "The Age". Probably the most ignorant piece of journalistic buffoonery I've ever seen, how his editor let this bloke loose is beyond me, no wonder journalists have a bad name. Look and let your eyes bleed. I want to say he was trying to be funny but sadly not so, he should have been reporting from a pre-school.

All aboard HMAS Canberra, the Royal Australian Navy's biggest ship

I lasted until halfway through the video. That boys a beer short of about three breweries. Mind you it show the tolerance and patience of RAN personnel towards idiots.

 

[aussienscale]

I lasted until halfway through the video. That boys a beer short of about three breweries. Mind you it show the tolerance and patience of RAN personnel towards idiots.

It has to be a piss take ? Surely

 

[StingrayOZ]

It has to be a piss take ? Surely

Yes.

Still not that funny.

 

[Magoo]

I was looking for some info for Canberra's commissioning and fell across this repot for "The Age". Probably the most ignorant piece of journalistic buffoonery I've ever seen, how his editor let this bloke loose is beyond me, no wonder journalists have a bad name. Look and let your eyes bleed. I want to say he was trying to be funny but sadly not so, he should have been reporting from a pre-school.

All aboard HMAS Canberra, the Royal Australian Navy's biggest ship

I was in the group next to him on the tour on Wednesday - some serious eye-rolling from the specialist media and some of those in uniform! My group included Channel 7 - I'm not sure why Defence insists on lumping specialist and general media in together...they ask dumb shit, and they don't understand what we're talking about when we ask smart shit!

Cheers

 

[King Wally]

I was looking for some info for Canberra's commissioning and fell across this repot for "The Age". Probably the most ignorant piece of journalistic buffoonery I've ever seen, how his editor let this bloke loose is beyond me, no wonder journalists have a bad name. Look and let your eyes bleed. I want to say he was trying to be funny but sadly not so, he should have been reporting from a pre-school.

All aboard HMAS Canberra, the Royal Australian Navy's biggest ship

What the hell did I just watch.

"so this flight deck, good for like a Cessna?"

"Oh Chinook, that's a plane right? ... oh a helicopter, right"

"I imagine scurvy is a major problem on a boat this size"

Can someone send him back to Today Tonight to chase dodgy tenants from hell and tradesmen who don't turn up on time, maybe the odd kitten stuck in a drain pipe story. I'm lost for words here

 

[swerve]

That was so bad it was embarrassing.

Can you lot down there please bombard his employer with emails & comments, telling them what a bad impression of the firm & the newspaper he gives? Do they really want to be associated with stupidity?

 

[DaveS124]

There are two new items in the ASPI Strategist regarding the LHDs. One by Steve George as a rebuttal, it seems, to the long ASPI anti-F35B piece of a few weeks ago, and another by a visiting US servicemen regarding the under-reported complexity of amphib ops and the dodgy, non-marinised helicopters the ADF have to use in the ships.

That article, if it can be termed that, from The Age was an abomination.