I assume the ospreys are using the 4 spots chinooks use. The Jc1 layout certainly seems to be proving itself.All spots checkednot bad
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Trackmaster
Member
And with the Canberra and Adelaide built to the same specs (?) there should be no difficulty operating Ospreys? The decks should stand up to it?
I would imagine the Canberra class would be most likely be able to do a simular trick. Deck strenght should be fine, not sure how capable they would be supporting aviation ops of 5 harriers and 4 mv22.
But does show having a jump doesnt really limit what the adf will/could be capable of.
Blas de Lezo
Member
Well Stingray, The Ospreys have been using all spots available at JCI, all of them!! for taking on and off plus securing and refuelling. They have also tried and tested extensively lifts and hangars, and movement of the aircraft through hanger and deck.
The two main differences and advantages for movement and usage of the Osprey vs Chinook are, one the speed at which MV22 folds and deploys rotors, very very quick indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_kTLUeS-nU
This allows MV22s to be moved from hangar to pretty much any spot on deck whilst the other spots are being used by other Ospreys, It takes about 1´10´´to deploy!!
The second mayor advantage is that length wise Chinook is 30,18 meters tip to tip of rotor blades whilst the Osprey is 17,4 meters, almost half. This allows Osprey to utilise all spots simultaneously.
I do not think the limitation for the number spots for Chinooks operated is one of overall weight or deck resistance but dimensions and lack of capacity to fold blades.
During Trident Juncture Ospreys and AV8B+ have been operating on deck simultaneously launching and recovering both types at the same time.
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/ShowBinaryServlet?nodePath=/BEA%20Repository/Desktops/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/Pages/conocenos_noticias/00_noticias/2015/11/NT-222-DESPLIEGUE-UNAEMB_es/FOTO-01//imagen&scale=none
A real eye opener for the Armada, and although I can not see Spain getting the type any time soon $$$$$$$$$$$
With Africom and the Marines in Spain it makes JCI a hell of a platform for combined operations.I am not aware of any differences about deck strength between JCI and Canberra-Adelaide, are there any?
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/ShowBinaryServlet?nodePath=/BEA%20Repository/Desktops/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/Pages/conocenos_noticias/00_noticias/2015/11/NT-222-DESPLIEGUE-UNAEMB_es/FOTO-02//imagen&scale=none
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/ShowBinaryServlet?nodePath=/BEA%20Repository/Desktops/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/Pages/conocenos_noticias/00_noticias/2015/11/NT-222-DESPLIEGUE-UNAEMB_es/FOTO-03//imagen&scale=none
I do not think will be long before you see the Ospreys on Canberra or Adelaide.
Best regards.
There's nothing structurally different about the flight deck. Differences are mostly to do with storage and aviation facilities including weapons and (I understand, may be wrong) fuel.
oldsig
I wouldn't imagine there is any difference in deck strength between the JC1/Canberra/Adelaide, structurally they should all be the same other than the minor changes in the tower. But its reported that the Australian ships have had further modification to their aviation capability in order to add to its embarked amphibious capability.
I don't think the Australia will get MV-22's either given the costs (at least in the near term). However, being able to tightly integrate USMC assets/capabilities in a significant way is a huge advantage.
Given Australia's shortage of Chinook/heavy lift capability, it would be highly likely that we would seek MV-22 cross decking. Next year when we see the ADF pull together for a full ARG utilising both LHD's, I would imagine to realistically deploy an ARG would require USMC "filling in the gaps" where the ADF doesn't have the depth to sustain or make available, or any specialized capability..
I see the LHD very much as a joint asset, not just for the Army/Navy/Airforce, but across nations. Particularly when your trying to operate two LHD's simultaneously in an ARG type mission.
Thats pretty nifty, from what I can see in the video, leave them folded until they take off. 6 MV-22 is quite a bit of capability. Combined with the Harriers quite impressive capability. JC1 seems to be an impressive replacement for PdA in terms of overall aviation capability.
I don't think the Australia will get MV-22's either given the costs (at least in the near term). However, being able to tightly integrate USMC assets/capabilities in a significant way is a huge advantage.
Given Australia's shortage of Chinook/heavy lift capability, it would be highly likely that we would seek MV-22 cross decking. Next year when we see the ADF pull together for a full ARG utilising both LHD's, I would imagine to realistically deploy an ARG would require USMC "filling in the gaps" where the ADF doesn't have the depth to sustain or make available, or any specialized capability..
I see the LHD very much as a joint asset, not just for the Army/Navy/Airforce, but across nations. Particularly when your trying to operate two LHD's simultaneously in an ARG type mission.
The Canberra's are exactly the same as the JC1 from the flight deck down (except that the Canberra's are built to Lloyd's), internal layout of living spaces I believe vary's as well, due to our requirements, But structurally the same.
The Fuel, Ammunition, stores, water bunkerage are the same. The biggest difference is in the superstructure/island with big configuration changes to ops and briefing spaces etc.
The Canberra's also had the RAS capability taken away from them as well, which I believe was a mistake.
Cheers
No wonder why we can't operate F-35 on Canberra: we can't replenish the AV gas.
Sorry, just to clarify
The JC1 is fitted with a span wire fuelling rig, so she can actually top up escorts from her tanks.
That capability was not included in the Canberra Class, so they have the ability to receive only.
Cheers
That's interesting, and I'm not surprised I have it bass ackwards.
This was discussed at length at the time when the White paper preparation discussed the *potential* that we *might* buy F-35B instead of F-35A *if* we get another tranche of 28 to take up all 100 options. Reasons why it couldn't happen ranged from the sensible to the outright silly, but included the frequent assertion that the hangar , weapon storage, fuel bunkerage etc were too different from JC1 and the cost of conversion and loss of extra space for vehicles etc were unsupportable. I fear I was convinced.
Lack of fighter control facilities, including radar etc makes sense. So do inter-service rivalries - RAAF protecting its possible extra squadron against RAN incursion, Army protecting its valuable load space against extra aircraft and those also are valid objections in a world where money is not usually available on a whim
oldsig
Indeed, but really, if the Spaniards intend to do it (and they do) it's a matter of our strategic intent and money, rather than any innate design feature
oldsig
GF or Volk can you clarify ?
I have always been of the understanding that the Fuel bunkerage, Stores, Ammunition bunkerage etc are exactly the same as the JC1 ? I have not seen any specific information indicating that Ammunition or JP5 bunkerage is any different, open source all states same capacities ?
The main difference being in the island layout for ops rooms, meeting rooms etc ?
Aircraft control is not a major issue and a pretty easy fix, the main crux of the issues in not that the Canberra's are that radically different in capability to the JC1, but is there enough to be able to operate fixed wing to make it worthwhile compared to a dedicated STOVL Carrier like the Cavour for instance ?
The RAAF would have nothing to worry about, if it were to ever happen, the Fleet Air Arm would not be re-formed, they would stay under RAAF control. Which would actually give the RAAF a very handy additional capability and flexibility from austere locations.
Army would not have too much to worry about either as they would swing roles as required and the mix onboard changed accordingly, and if it came down to it, I am sure the guy's on the ground would not be complaining about an F-35B providing CAS.
Raven may have better insight into that thought ?
Cheers, happy to be corrected if anyone can provide anything definitive ?
t68
Well-Known Member
One must remember that JC1 was to be an auxillary aircraft carrier for when the PDA was dock side for extended periods. From what I can see she was never intended to be an aircraft carrier as its primary mission sets but a secondary function. As for Cavour her primary mission set is an aircraft carrier and Amphiboius Assualt carrier second.
phat ships conops is markedly different to JC1
they (phats) are different internally out of necessity to reflect the difference in primary intent
they (phats) are different internally out of necessity to reflect the difference in primary intent
t68
Well-Known Member
Money was the overriding factor on PDA early withdrawal from service.
http://murciatoday.com/the-principe-de-asturias-will-be-decommissioned-today_14925-a.html
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Video: HMAS Canberra Achieved IOC 24 Nov 2015 9min 30sec
ASPI White Ensign Dinner 2015 - Chief of Navy VADM Tim Barrett 25 Nov 2015
Published on Nov 26, 2015 ASPICanberra
"On Wednesday 25th November, ASPI and Lockheed Martin hosted the annual Chief of Navy’s White Ensign Dinner.
The event was opened by Mr Peter Jennings of ASPI, and the Chief of Navy was introduced by Raydon Gates, CEO of Lockheed Martin Australia and New Zealand.
Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, proposed that the RAN is entering a new era and creating a new ‘fifth generation’ naval force.
Vice Admiral Barrett addressed the Navy’s recent successes and its future challenges. The HMAS Hobart Air Warfare Destroyer was launched in May, and the keel was laid for HMAS Sydney just one week ago. The government has committed to a continuous build of surface vessels in South Australia, starting with the Armidale- and ANZAC-class replacements. Although the scheduled start dates of 2018 and 2020 will present organisational challenges, Vice Admiral Barrett argues that a continuous build presents an opportunity for innovation and evolution in the future RAN fleet.
RAN has also managed to improve the availability of the Collins submarine fleet significantly in recent years, and lessons learned will help inform the government’s Competitive Evaluation Process for the future submarine replacement.
The Vice Admiral also mentioned the opportunities for ADF inter-service cooperation presented by the introduction of the Canberra-class. He encouraged innovation in the ADF, and emphasised the value of the personnel in helping create the next generation RAN fleet."
QUOTE about IOC achievement at the 9 minute 30 second mark in video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFU1Z76aTas
ASPI White Ensign Dinner 2015 - Chief of Navy VADM Tim Barrett 25 Nov 2015
Published on Nov 26, 2015 ASPICanberra
"On Wednesday 25th November, ASPI and Lockheed Martin hosted the annual Chief of Navy’s White Ensign Dinner.
The event was opened by Mr Peter Jennings of ASPI, and the Chief of Navy was introduced by Raydon Gates, CEO of Lockheed Martin Australia and New Zealand.
Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, proposed that the RAN is entering a new era and creating a new ‘fifth generation’ naval force.
Vice Admiral Barrett addressed the Navy’s recent successes and its future challenges. The HMAS Hobart Air Warfare Destroyer was launched in May, and the keel was laid for HMAS Sydney just one week ago. The government has committed to a continuous build of surface vessels in South Australia, starting with the Armidale- and ANZAC-class replacements. Although the scheduled start dates of 2018 and 2020 will present organisational challenges, Vice Admiral Barrett argues that a continuous build presents an opportunity for innovation and evolution in the future RAN fleet.
RAN has also managed to improve the availability of the Collins submarine fleet significantly in recent years, and lessons learned will help inform the government’s Competitive Evaluation Process for the future submarine replacement.
The Vice Admiral also mentioned the opportunities for ADF inter-service cooperation presented by the introduction of the Canberra-class. He encouraged innovation in the ADF, and emphasised the value of the personnel in helping create the next generation RAN fleet."
QUOTE about IOC achievement at the 9 minute 30 second mark in video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFU1Z76aTas
Last edited:
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Speech - mentioned above -Transcript here:
CN on continuous ship-building and deterrence | Australian Naval Institute
CN on continuous ship-building and deterrence | Australian Naval Institute
I'm surprised that some of the more excitable advocates for JSF jumpers haven't been revved up about the writing on the side of the islands onHMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra.....
- Status