Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[StingrayOZ]

I'd assume that staff have been attached to USMC ARG's for a reason.......

I just would have hoped it had been made a lot clearer in the Defence white paper that was the intention. But I guess many steps to get there.

I am interested in how this all goes together. It doesn't seem that the original intention of the Juan Carlos 1 LHD design was to offer ESG capability (even with multiple ships).

Even with two LHD's and Choules, it will be tight assuming we are trying to match/approximate capability.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I just would have hoped it had been made a lot clearer in the Defence white paper that was the intention. But I guess many steps to get there.

I am interested in how this all goes together. It doesn't seem that the original intention of the Juan Carlos 1 LHD design was to offer ESG capability (even with multiple ships).

Even with two LHD's and Choules, it will be tight assuming we are trying to match/approximate capability.

the public white paper is a very low key document - there's never any intent to flag deeper tactical or strategic planning minutia in it

 

[StingrayOZ]

the public white paper is a very low key document - there's never any intent to flag deeper tactical or strategic planning minutia in it

Talk softly and build a large amphibious stick?

I had wondered with all the political changes that perhaps we were losing our commitment to strong amphibious capabilities. Now we have the LHD's that this may no longer be a priority, the key capability we forge the entire ADF into. LCH going with no replacement for example.

Really in the paper, it only made mention to better protecting the LHD's and replacing the newly acquired LCM-1e. Door kicking capability? Has anything other than LCM-1e's operated from the JC1 LHD design?

I would have figured trying to replicate the US expeditionary capability (or at least 1/3rd of it in the form of a ESG) would have been pretty front and centre.

 

[aussienscale]

Next year the entire ARG (all three Amphibs filled to the brim) will take part in Ex TALISMAN SABRE with an entire Marine Expeditionary Strike Group. That will be about as big an amphib exercise as we're ever likely to take part in.

Now that I would love to be a part of

Raven on a side note, any thoughts on whether Army could be looking at the USMC ACV program ?

Cheers

 

[King Wally]

Wanted to fact check something from todays new issue of the asia pacific defence reporter

Australian Defence News | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

... a lot of discussion RE: LHD's within including one throw away line on Page 24 that states that recent upgrades to our M1A1 Main Battle Tanks have placed them too heavy to deploy via the LHD's landing craft?

That sounds like a pretty serious problem if true?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Isn't the LCM-1e certification of the M1A1 happening now? Or soon?

AFAIK its not a real problem. More like one in theory. There is adequate margin, its not a problem. They will just retest confirm.

 

[ASSAIL]

Wanted to fact check something from todays new issue of the asia pacific defence reporter

Australian Defence News | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

... a lot of discussion RE: LHD's within including one throw away line on Page 24 that states that recent upgrades to our M1A1 Main Battle Tanks have placed them too heavy to deploy via the LHD's landing craft?

That sounds like a pretty serious problem if true?

Why does anyone believe that we would buy an amphibious capability that precludes us landing MBTs? Do we believe that our acquisition process is that sh$te?
Defence has known about the tank upgrades for a fair time.

I'm not an insider but I have enough faith in the process to believe there won't be a problem with something so basic.
It would be like buying an ARH that couldn't talk to our allies

 

[StingrayOZ]

Why does anyone believe that we would buy an amphibious capability that precludes us landing MBTs? Do we believe that our acquisition process is that sh$te?
Defence has known about the tank upgrades for a fair time.

I'm not an insider but I have enough faith in the process to believe there won't be a problem with something so basic.
It would be like buying an ARH that couldn't talk to our allies

How much heavier are the upgrade M1A1?

I don't see how some new hoses and cables will dramatically change the mass of the M1A1.

It seems that we may be operating some future connector from the LHD's in the future given the white paper. But I don't see the LCM's being decommissioned.

 

[vonnoobie]

The issue of the LCM-1E's and the upgraded M1A1's has been discussed already here, to clarify the discussion the weight will only become a factor when they are fully combat loaded ready to storm a fortified beach (Not a likely occurance) in high sea states.

Excluding a worse case scenario the ADF is almost certain to never deploy a fully combat loaded M1A1 in severe ocean conditions by use of LCM-1E's, We would either wait for favourable conditions, use other forces to secure a port facility or harbour, or ask the American's or Europeans to have some of there LCU's to stop by (Almost certain we wouldnt be undertaking a large operation requireing the use of MBT's with out a major ally supporting us).

It really is a none issue.

 

[SpazSinbad]

L61 is amazing LHD. Looks like a floating city. I heard the news that Turkey will be produced. Reall ?

Articles/reports about construction 'as an aircraft carrier' of the Turkish LHD which will operate 6 F-35Bs are here:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/a...ernational-participation-12485-23/#post309021

 

[Volkodav]

Why does anyone believe that we would buy an amphibious capability that precludes us landing MBTs? Do we believe that our acquisition process is that sh$te?
Defence has known about the tank upgrades for a fair time.

I'm not an insider but I have enough faith in the process to believe there won't be a problem with something so basic.
It would be like buying an ARH that couldn't talk to our allies

But for the obvious sarcasm at the end I was going to mention the LCM2000, an amphibious capability that didn't fit on the ships meant to carry them, that couldn't be easily or effectively craned on and off the ships anyway as lifting points weren't strong enough.

 

[ASSAIL]

But for the obvious sarcasm at the end I was going to mention the LCM2000, an amphibious capability that didn't fit on the ships meant to carry them, that couldn't be easily or effectively craned on and off the ships anyway as lifting points weren't strong enough.

Weren't these built by Thales to Army specs? For 10 Force Support Battalion Townsville?
Wasn't the problem more to do with structural weakness where they were unable to carry the planned 5 ASLAVs

 

[Stampede]

Its a new year and a old debate but the recent successful testing of F35B'S on USS America is showing the good progress of this aircraft.
For those interested this link may be of interest.

Putting F-35B on the Canberra Class LHDs: The Debate Continues – Steve George – The Central Blue

Regards S

 

[vonnoobie]

Its a new year and a old debate but the recent successful testing of F35B'S on USS America is showing the good progress of this aircraft.
For those interested this link may be of interest.

Putting F-35B on the Canberra Class LHDs: The Debate Continues – Steve George – The Central Blue

Regards S

Government and Navy have already debated and done away with it. We knew all along that the LHD's could handle them but to have any worth while number aboard would take away space required for use by helicopter's and military vehicles.

To have F-35B's aboard the Canberra's would require deploying any ground force exclusively by sea and having them fielded with far less vehicles then they would have had.

With the size of the ships it's either an LHD or a light carrier.. We have little need for a light carrier but a great need for an LHD.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Government and Navy have already debated and done away with it. We knew all along that the LHD's could handle them but to have any worth while number aboard would take away space required for use by helicopter's and military vehicles.

To have F-35B's aboard the Canberra's would require deploying any ground force exclusively by sea and having them fielded with far less vehicles then they would have had.

With the size of the ships it's either an LHD or a light carrier.. We have little need for a light carrier but a great need for an LHD.

more to the point is that there are a whole pile of other more important mission sets in place for the phatships, these were scoped as part of the development of a whole range of other conops.

the focus model for them should be and is more aligned with USN ARG/ESG's but without fixed wing strike

 

[StingrayOZ]

more to the point is that there are a whole pile of other more important mission sets in place for the phatships, these were scoped as part of the development of a whole range of other conops.

the focus model for them should be and is more aligned with USN ARG/ESG's but without fixed wing strike

I don't see the F-35B as a question that needs or can be answered currently. In fact I think it is counterproductive to seriously consider it now with our still developing amphibious capability.

Currently we would be better off throwing our money at the amphibious capability. With our limited Chinook fleet, limited LCM-1e capability, no independent landing capability than the LHD/LPD. No amphibious vehicles other than our not fully updated LARCV.

I would be putting things like MV-22, LCAC/L-Cat, LCH, ARH that a capable of LHD operation, how are we going to sustain the amphibious capability.

 

[t68]

I don't see the F-35B as a question that needs or can be answered currently. In fact I think it is counterproductive to seriously consider it now with our still developing amphibious capability.

Currently we would be better off throwing our money at the amphibious capability. With our limited Chinook fleet, limited LCM-1e capability, no independent landing capability than the LHD/LPD. No amphibious vehicles other than our not fully updated LARCV.

I would be putting things like MV-22, LCAC/L-Cat, LCH, ARH that a capable of LHD operation, how are we going to sustain the amphibious capability.

I agree we are just starting to get our feet wet with this capabilty, I believe we must exploit it till its full potencial is reached, then and only then should we be thinking additional capabilty.

I have no problem with RAAF getting F35B in the next decade or so and I think that may dovetail into more advanced thinking in regards to our other capbilty that wil need to replaced either a third LHD or a light carrier with a larger secondary amphibious capabilty but that's a long way off, untill then we should be focusing on what Army and Navy need to make it a success. In the past Raven has brought up about the need to increase our logistic tail for Army along with specialist equipment like assualt breacher and bridging capabilty Navy needs more capbilty in ship to shore and LCH replacement etc

 

[gf0012-aust]

Currently we would be better off throwing our money at the amphibious capability. With our limited Chinook fleet, limited LCM-1e capability, no independent landing capability than the LHD/LPD. No amphibious vehicles other than our not fully updated LARCV.

the entire effort being applied to dev of the phatships in future ops is against ARG/ESG vignettes

minimal consideration and effort was applied to fixed wing centric roles and was only done very very early in the pice

not even on the radar now

 

[Volkodav]

Devils advocate here. As the majority of the helicopters to be operated from the LHDs belong to the army and will be busy doing army stuff most of the time, doesn't that indicate that the LHDs will spend most of their time with an almost empty flight deck and hanger?

If this is the case then they could end up spending more time operating aircraft from allied forces than the intended army airgroup, i.e. potentially F-35Bs, Ospreys as well as the obvious RAN FAA Seahawks? Also if the projected third AOR eventually is ordered as a second LPD, wouldn't that potentially free up space for other stuff on the larger and more flexible LHDs?

 

[Stampede]

Devils advocate here. As the majority of the helicopters to be operated from the LHDs belong to the army and will be busy doing army stuff most of the time, doesn't that indicate that the LHDs will spend most of their time with an almost empty flight deck and hanger?

If this is the case then they could end up spending more time operating aircraft from allied forces than the intended army airgroup, i.e. potentially F-35Bs, Ospreys as well as the obvious RAN FAA Seahawks? Also if the projected third AOR eventually is ordered as a second LPD, wouldn't that potentially free up space for other stuff on the larger and more flexible LHDs?

Crawl , Walk, Run.
I wonder as to which of the above is the current stage of the development of the Canberra class.
To some extent I guess what are your goals.
Is it the selection of ship. 10 yr ago. yep a decade ago!
building of ship. now complete,
Sea trials.
helicopter and vehicle familiarity Currently on going.
First HADR mission. Tick Fiji.
build up of amphibious skills. 2 RAR
fleet integration.
Training, consolidation,improvement,do it again,
more training ,consolidation and improvement.
work with allies.
look for all the weak links ,adjust and develop.
It never ends until we can utilise the full potential of this ship.

Crawl ,walk,run

I get the go to woe of expectation in the early Howard era post ET of two big amphib's and the holistic capability it will bring to the ADF.
It is a massive project not only in building and operating the ships but also the broader Army/Navy and yes AIr Force assets needed to achieve an end.
ie a large amphibious combined arms battle group.
It's a good project and should rightfully be the current focus.

However lets not lose sight of the ships potential and at least give some future proofing as to where we might be in another decade from now with Canberra and the f35B

2027 crawl,walk run
f35a in service with air force
Canberra class will have had many years to practice and consolidate all forms of amphibious operation both nationally and with allies.
Geo political climate..... who nows

Should the F35B be apart of the ADF kit bag.



Personal opinion......it's a no brainer and should be funded accordingly.........

F35B....Crawl, walk, run will need some energy and commitment very soon in conjunction with the completion of our amphibious skills build up.
I think the ADF can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Regards S