Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[Boagrius]

It will certainly be interesting to see how the ADF responds once the RAN has been able to play with RAAF F35As for a decent period of time. The Lightnings's passive sensors alone seem game changing. Take EODAS for example - for now optimised for WVR targets, but what if future upgrades can reliably extend its view much further afield?

Timing is probably wrong now but wouldn't surprise me to see the F35B concept revisited (or at least weighed against alternatives) in another decade once other capabilities have been fleshed out some more. The need for a Super Hornet replacement in particular may rejuvenate the discussion...

 

[Todjaeger]

Is AEW such a big issue with land based aircraft?
E7 has a range of 6500 km.
The G550 has a range of 12,500 km.
Both capable of being refueled in the air and having multiple pilots. Persistence over even pretty blue water would seem entirely doable. For Australia that would probably cover most foreseeable deployments.

IMO it would really depend on what is going on and where. There are six E7's in the RAAF inventory I believe, with a maximum on-station mission time of somewhere around 15 - 18 hours due to a carried fluid (I suspect a liquid coolant, as the time limit cannot be overcome with in-flight refueling AFAIK), and currently five KC-30's, with two more having been ordered, and a further two orders being considered.

As an example, if a RAN task force was deployed to the Spratlys close to the Philippines, that is about 3,000 km from Darwin. A RAAF E-7 could be sent out to provide AEW coverage, but it would require at least one, and more likely two or three tanking missions to provide any sort of useful persistence and that is assuming that a direct flight path from Darwin to the Spratly Islands area was permitted by both Indonesia and Malaysia. Should a flight path solely over int'l airspace be required, the tanking missions would be increased.

Absent a much closer airfield to operate from, I suspect that the RAAF could only maintain a constant AEW presence for a few days. The operational tempo required of the E-7's, the KC-30's and their respective ground and air crews would be unlikely to be sustainable if an E-7 needed to be refueled on-station every eight hours, and the refueling station was 3.5 hours away.

The above scenario is also assuming that the KC-30 and E-7 fleets were able to be solely tasked with supporting the RAN task force and that there were no other missions requiring their participation elsewhere. By way of comparison, a USN CVN has 4+ E-2C/D Hawkeyes to permit an AWACS presence to be maintained organically.

The G550 aircraft (which are not listed on the RAAF site btw) I believe are configured for EW/SIGINT operations, like one of the AP-3C Orions has been functioning, or like the USN EP-3. If that is correct, then they cannot really provide an AEW capability because they are not kitted out with the needed systems.

 

[76mmGuns]

The conversion of the Canberra's won't happen for very specific reasons, and they are reasons that go beyond the whole "it will take away from what they were purchased and intended for" or "it would take away key abilities of the ship for amphibious operations".

If we do head down that path we would purchase a dedicated ship to fill that purpose.

Cheers

If we do not convert the Canberra's for f35s, and we are serious about war, in my opinion we should put better guns on. The ramp can handle a 76mm , and to reduce the hassle of deck penetration, 40mm's on the back. I'm not even talking about missiles.

 

[aussienscale]

Thanks for your reply and phrasing of the argument.
I'm still in the doable camp so I guess we'll both just watch and see.
A dedicated ship, a third large aircraft carrier,well that would be a hard sell to the public.
However with Geopolitical change to the north, time may cure that sales challenge.

Regards S

By dedicated ship, I don't specifically mean a purpose built dedicated Stovl carrier, just a third LHD, but with the internals needed to operate.

Looks the same, must be the same as the other 2 we already have Although something along the lines of Cavour would fit the bill nicely.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

IAI EL/W-2085 - Wikipedia
But it is claimed to track up to 100 targets and be able to guide munitions.

Singapore and Israel replaced their E-2's with them, which is why perhaps I thought they might still be useful in that role.

Certainly sustaining coverage 24/7 at 3,000 km would be difficult, but operating from Singapore, Malaysia (butterworth?) or Vietnam or Philippines would be much easier. I believe we have operated E7's out of Butterworth, and we had P3's in the Philippines for awhile. Triton while not a AEW, would add further sensor coverage, combined with JORN and sat based systems.

I am not against some sort of ship borne AEW, but there is some coverage and capability from land based aircraft, particularly with friendly airfields. There isn't a lot of options for ship borne AEW. Any carrier we operate is likely to have some limitations in the number of aircraft and sorties it can operate. I don't see us acquiring E-2's for example or a ship they would be able to operate off.

I would be tempted to think that combined with the F-35B's own capabilities, that might be enough to field some pretty decent capability.

 

[Todjaeger]

IAI EL/W-2085 - Wikipedia
But it is claimed to track up to 100 targets and be able to guide munitions.

Singapore and Israel replaced their E-2's with them, which is why perhaps I thought they might still be useful in that role.

Certainly sustaining coverage 24/7 at 3,000 km would be difficult, but operating from Singapore, Malaysia (butterworth?) or Vietnam or Philippines would be much easier. I believe we have operated E7's out of Butterworth, and we had P3's in the Philippines for awhile. Triton while not a AEW, would add further sensor coverage, combined with JORN and sat based systems.

I am not against some sort of ship borne AEW, but there is some coverage and capability from land based aircraft, particularly with friendly airfields. There isn't a lot of options for ship borne AEW. Any carrier we operate is likely to have some limitations in the number of aircraft and sorties it can operate. I don't see us acquiring E-2's for example or a ship they would be able to operate off.

I would be tempted to think that combined with the F-35B's own capabilities, that might be enough to field some pretty decent capability.

Yes, but there has been no confirmation that the RAAF is getting a G550 version with such a radar, since the role is to be a ELINT/SIGINT ISR asset. The underlying article around which the Wiki entry was based is here. Reading that and several other articles about the sale, the expected G550 role is that of AISREW, and the prime contractor for the modifications is L-3 and even for the G550 versions under consideration for the USN (as a replacement for the NP-3D) there is some question on whether or not IAI or the subsidiary Elta have any involvement. The same goes for the versions the US is planning to purchase as a EC-130H Compass Call replacements.

My reading of this is that the RAAF capability is to be complementary to the E-7 and P-8, rather than a replication.

 

[Stampede]

By dedicated ship, I don't specifically mean a purpose built dedicated Stovl carrier, just a third LHD, but with the internals needed to operate.

Looks the same, must be the same as the other 2 we already have Although something along the lines of Cavour would fit the bill nicely.

Cheers

Replace Choules with a third of the class is workable.
What you fly off it, or them, will evolve.


Regards S

 

[alexsa]

By dedicated ship, I don't specifically mean a purpose built dedicated Stovl carrier, just a third LHD, but with the internals needed to operate.

Looks the same, must be the same as the other 2 we already have Although something along the lines of Cavour would fit the bill nicely.

Cheers

Below the superstructure our LHDs are the same as Juan Carlos. So they could operates harriers and it seems with a change in deck coating could operate the F-35B. The issue was how many it could sustain, the sortie rate and weapons storage.

The argument is that to sustain fixed wing ops the LHD would compromise is amphibious function. The game changer for me is the fact the F-35B offers exceptional situational awareness and is a force multiplier. Even a flight of four offers a great deal.

 

[SpazSinbad]

In the case of FLEET DEFENCE there is no need to GO BIG or GO HOME. Recall the early A4G era of FLEET DEFENCE. Only FOUR A4Gs were onboard MELBOURNE with the rest the ASW GANG of Twackers & DipGangers. Thats what MELBOURNE was - an ASW Aircraft Carrier with Fleet Defenders (similar to the ASW only carriers of the USN in the mid to late 1960s that changed with the Vietnam War).

In this way with the need for only a few F-35Bs onboard, with a limited role when required, then 'some F-35Bs on Oz LHDs as required (which may be never but exercised regularly)' becomes more DOable and less of a strain on the current pair of LHDs. These LHDs could also become 'spare decks' as needed in emergency for the regional F-35Bs. Even Japan is thinking about that idea for the current 'thru deck cruisers' that may be converted to F-35B carriers eventually. Like us it is early days for Japan with the F-35B concept; whilst Australia just says no because apparently ……. fill in your own or the excuse of someone else.

Look on the brighter side. The LHDs of Oz with potential for embarking a small number of F-35Bs is much more of a deterrent to ne'er do wells in our region. When not onboard the RAAF will still be free to use them for their own nefarious purposes (protect the ARMY somewhere but from ASHORE). One day the penny will drop.

 

[aussienscale]

Below the superstructure our LHDs are the same as Juan Carlos

GF has previously stated that this is not actually the case, I thought it was too, but not so

Cheers

 

[Stampede]

Below the superstructure our LHDs are the same as Juan Carlos. So they could operates harriers and it seems with a change in deck coating could operate the F-35B. The issue was how many it could sustain, the sortie rate and weapons storage.

The argument is that to sustain fixed wing ops the LHD would compromise is amphibious function. The game changer for me is the fact the F-35B offers exceptional situational awareness and is a force multiplier. Even a flight of four offers a great deal.

True, fixed wing ops will compromise some amphibious function but everything is a compromise.
Remember we can of course still sail without fixed we aircraft!!!!
All missions and what the Canberra's sail with will be mission dependant, no different to what we do today, except we are introducing another option in fixed winged aircraft.
The Swiss army knife analogy comes to play with the Canberra Class, with it's flexibility being its strength. For a Navy of our size the "Jack of all trades master of none" LHD has more attributes than limitations.
The frustration is when its full potential is not utilised, which currently is a mind set against carrying the F35B.

Even if the flight deck,hangar and light vehicle deck were taken up with fixed and rotary aircraft there is still a lot of space for vehicles on the lower deck and still the ship can carry four loaded LLC in the well dock.
With some 400 pax devoted to air crew and support of the aviation group their is still over 500 bunks for troop transport.

This is not a small amphibious landing force.
If that is not enough, we still have a second LHD and HMAS Choules plus not to forget coalition forces.

I can understand the crawl, walk, run arguments, and understand amphibious training would be the initial priority for the Canberra class.
However once comfortable with this task, lets be open to explore the LHD's full potential.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

GF has previously stated that this is not actually the case, I thought it was too, but not so

Cheers

Cannot seem to find clarity on this regarding changes or lack of in the Canberra class compared to the Juan Carlos.
Also if there are differences how significant are they?
Having read as much as I can in the public forum, I have heard both yes and no on the subject so conclude it's not for the public to know.

So for an outsider like myself I will continue to observe with interest.


Regards S

 

[DaveS124]

Post deleted - was probably unnecessary. As you were.

 

[t68]

GF has previously stated that this is not actually the case, I thought it was too, but not so

Cheers

All the reading material that I've came across suggests that below the deck the only changes were made were Australian spec equipment for DC, lighting etc, no major changes to bunkerage or EO magazine or stores as they wanted to keep cost down,

 

[alexsa]

GF has previously stated that this is not actually the case, I thought it was too, but not so

Cheers

This was discussed and length and I believe it was confirmed that below the superstructure they are the same. JC1 was never intended to be a dedicated CV but were could provide some support. As such they do not equipped for sustained fast jet operations in both fuel storage and weapons stowage. However, as indicated by the operation of JC1, they could support a small number of VSTOL aircraft. The ships will require work in coatings and supporting systems.

This will reduce the Amphib capacity as they would chew up some of the garage deck space. For both aircraft and equipment. Still it seems that there is an opportunity to embarked aircraft needed for a particular mission ...... if we ever buy the F-35B.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Perhaps this RAAFie Chappie and subsequent may bring some knowledge down the track on F-35Bs at least. Have not seen a peep since but have not been looking specifically for the chap since the date in 2016 approximately.

09 May 2016 Leigh Watson RAAF News http://www.airforce.gov.au/News/Air-Force-Newspaper
“...So we'll have Australians flying F-35Bs with the USMC in the near term....” LTGEN Jon Davis USMC

Navantia | Strategic Projection Ship | LHD “Juan Carlos I”
“...The “JUAN CARLOS I” is a single hull ship made of steel with the superstructure on the starboard side. Her design is based on a combination of military and commercial standards and specifications; the structure, equipment and materials follow Lloyd’s Register of Shipping’s civil standards, whilst her combat system, ordnance handling and stowage systems, systems of supply at sea, flight deck and the damage control system follow military standards. The ship as being designed with four mission profiles:
AMPHIBIOUS SHIP: Capable of transporting a Marine Infantry Force to carry out landing , supporting operations on land.
FORCE PROJECTION SHIP: Transporting forces of any army to a theatre of operations.
AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.).
HUMANITARIAN AID OPERATIONS SHIP: NON-WAR operations, humanitarian assistance, evacuation of crisis areas, hospital ship in areas affected by natural disaster, etc.
...For its part, the runway has a 12° gradient or ski-jump afore to facilitate the takeoff of STOVL & to improve the loading capacity of fuel & weaponry....
...In a significant qualitative leap, this ship is also designed to operate with the STOVL version of the JSF, the F-35B Lightning II, if the Spanish Navy decides to acquire this exceptional plane. A touchdown point has also been reserved astern of the flight deck that is specially adapted (in dimensions & resistance) for the special needs of the new V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. For the transfer of aircraft between the hanger and the flight deck, the Juan Carlos I has two elevators, each with a capacity of 25 tonnes and sufficient size to be able to carry up to the new F-35B Lightning II, or a helicopter the size of a Chinook. The capacity of the hangar is variable depending on the mission profile. This means an area of 1,000 m2 would be available for an amphibious type profile. This surface area could be increased by a further 2,046 m2, using the upper garage to have greater capacity for the aircraft. This means the hangar would reach 3,000 m2 for an aircraft carrier type profile. The hanger itself, situated further astern, can house up to 12 medium-sized helicopters. In the case of the LHD operating as a temporary aircraft carrier, the vehicles and material would be substituted by between 10 and 12 STOVL planes, as well as the dozen helicopters previously mentioned. In order to provide support for airborne operations, it is estimated that the ship has sufficient fuel, spare parts and arms so that the embarked aircraft could carry out their operations without the ship needing replenishment for up to a maximum of 50 days.
The planned airborne capacity is for her to transport and operate up to 30 aircraft including medium-sized and heavy helicopters in amphibious operation profiles, or between 10 and 12 F-35B planes or AV-8B+, plus a similar number of medium-sized helicopters when acting with an aircraft carrier mission profile at times when the Príncipe de Asturias R-11 is not operational....”
http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto LHD_marzo_para navantia_ingles.pdf

Plan Jericho - Introducing 5th Generation Capability July 2014 ADM Magazine Nigel Pittaway
“...A STOVL F-35B for Air Force?
CAF also revealed that Air Force is currently studying the potential operations of a short take off vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B from the decks of Navy's new Landing Helicopter Dock ships.
The Abbott government is reportedly interested in expanding the LHD role by the addition of combat jets and analysis is now being undertaken to determine what will be required. Air Force has previously (and repeatedly) said that the F-35B was not under consideration and that modelling showed the LHDs could be adequately protected by shore-based F-35As. [yeahbut howbut no word on HOW huh]
"Any idea is worth a look at, because the situation changes, circumstances change. STOVLs have their place, they are a more expensive aeroplane, they have a lot less range and they don't have the weapons capability," he noted.
"It depends on how you see the LHD. If you want to convert it to take STOVL, there are a lot of considerations that you have to take into account and JSF/STOVL by itself isn't a capability. It needs weapons and it needs fuel.
"And I think that if you go and look at the changes you have to put in place to operate STOVL off an LHD you will see that it's got its challenges. That's what we'll work through over the next few months is to articulate what those challenges are, what additional cost, if that's the way we decide we want to go.”

And then a pic of JCI going along the Suez Canal to Kuwait as mentioned earlier.View attachment 45850

 

[Stampede]

All the reading material that I've came across suggests that below the deck the only changes were made were Australian spec equipment for DC, lighting etc, no major changes to bunkerage or EO magazine or stores as they wanted to keep cost down,

Thanks
My understanding as well.
Visuals of the Juan Carlos and The Canberra class both external and internal appear near identical.
I'm sure their are Aust Spec equipment requirements but would speculate the two ships are apples for apples re capability.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

This was discussed and length and I believe it was confirmed that below the superstructure they are the same. JC1 was never intended to be a dedicated CV but were could provide some support. As such they do not equipped for sustained fast jet operations in both fuel storage and weapons stowage. However, as indicated by the operation of JC1, they could support a small number of VSTOL aircraft. The ships will require work in coatings and supporting systems.

This will reduce the Amphib capacity as they would chew up some of the garage deck space. For both aircraft and equipment. Still it seems that there is an opportunity to embarked aircraft needed for a particular mission ...... if we ever buy the F-35B.

Thanks Alexsa

My understanding is you could conduct operations off the Canberra class tomorrow without any modifications.
Re the F35B well the obvious limitation is the lack of a protective deck coating.Others problems would be the air flow around the ships flight deck surfaces and how to work through that challenge.The same challenge exists with all aircraft and is manageable with time and experience.
My understanding is the ships ammunition storage area is some 580 m2 with a further 800 t devoted for aviation fuel storage. The later is a bit over half the capacity of Italy's Cavour aircraft carrier so would suggest while it is a limitation it would still provide some capacity.

Yes major structural work would add aviation capacity, but only just get the flight deck working and you have some reasonable and suggest cost effective capacity.




Regards S

 

[DaveS124]

RAN is very excited about this pic, taken this week.

Not one of those helos is marinised. Oh yes, contrary to a stentorian assertion from one of DT's blue-tag experts, the ADF Chinooks do not have autofold. There is not an autofold Chook in any nation's ORBAT, and unless the US Army makes it otherwise that fact will not change**. To fit/remove Chook rotors take four to five hours in sea state zero, and without depressing the rotor hubs (to be avoided, if at all possible) they cannot be taken downstairs. So, it's lots of exposure to the saltiest of seaspray for them.

Professional fast red air could make a meal of this pig's breakfast, both aeroplanes and Mother. But there you have it.

** The Spanish did this a few weeks ago, when they ferried three Chooks and some Cougars to Kuwait. Let's just say life was much easier when JUAN CARLOS I had an embarked USMC Osprey squadron. Getting the Chooks downstairs took the best part of a day.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks Alexsa
My understanding is you could conduct operations off the Canberra class tomorrow without any modifications.
Re the F35B well the obvious limitation is the lack of a protective deck coating.Others problems would be the air flow around the ships flight deck surfaces and how to work through that challenge.The same challenge exists with all aircraft and is manageable with time and experience.... Yes major structural work would add aviation capacity, but only just get the flight deck working and you have some reasonable and suggest cost effective capacity. Regards S

All new ship flat deck classes require a SHOL diagram for all VTOL/Helo types - lots of research beforehand mapped the airflow around our LHDs specifically using models/wind tunnels and computers IIRC. There are links to this info if required. An F-35B will require a SHOL (Ship Helo Operating Limit?) diagram (I'm not a former helo pilot so I don't remember all this helo shite). A SHOL (I'll attach that diagram) was used for the first F-35B tests on an USN LHA and subsequently modified most likely after further ship/aircraft testing. Until such SHOL is made for our LHDs and modification made to flight deck non-slip paint and other folderol it will be unlikely any F-35B comes aboard.

RAN explaino SHOL: http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Touchdown_April_2012.pdf (no longer at this address so I'll attach the PDF)

Lots of SHOL details: http://repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:711fe747-a30b-4e15-81d5-e93e5ce06ac5/Hoencamp_-_PhD.pdf (of course this URL not working - the interrabble has become useless)

This INSIDEdeFENCE PDF came into my hands from: http://insidedefense.com//index.php?option=com_iwpfile&file=pdf11/10212011_wasp.pdf