Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[SpazSinbad]

Yes, no and yes. As I understand it Australia is the only other country getting CEC to date. And the "no" is because there aren't any Australian F-35Bs nor intention to get them.

oldsig

Yeah But - No But - Yeah But - It's the VIBE! [Hat tip to The CASTLE & Michael Caton & Tiriel Mora (1997)]

 

[Volkodav]

Yeah But - No But - Yeah But - It's the VIBE! [Hat tip to The CASTLE & Michael Caton & Tiriel Mora (1997)]

With the new frigates being named for Australian regions (that in turn are named for explorers) we have three capital city names to spare that would suit something largish with a flat deck and hangar.......

 

[Redlands18]

With the new frigates being named for Australian regions (that in turn are named for explorers) we have three capital city names to spare that would suit something largish with a flat deck and hangar.......

Melbourne & Darwin by about 2021, whats the 3rd? Perth not till mid to late 30s, Canberra, Adelaide mid 40s? 3 Hobarts mid-late 40s.

 

[Volkodav]

Melbourne & Darwin by about 2021, whats the 3rd? Perth not till mid to late 30s, Canberra, Adelaide mid 40s? 3 Hobarts mid-late 40s.

Works perfectly, Darwin is available now, Melbourne after the sale to Poland and Perth on the retirement of the ANZACs. That's a nice tack time of one new ship of that type every sevela years from the early 20s

 

[Stampede]

Thanks SpazSinbad and Alexsa
( F35- International Participation thread )

A conversation for the appropriate thread.
Suggest your correct with the below deck layout being similar across the class.
Yes,it's an important question regarding Sortie and support capacity, and agree it's all academic if we are not to pursue such a capability.

However!!!!!
I do wonder what F35 B capability you would get off the Juan Carlos / Canberra Class if you did nothing more than heat protect the deck for flight operations.
Use existing Ammunition / Fuel storage and flight operation services.
Surely there is some radar capacity as is,not to mention the ships already conduct flight operations with helicopters.
Add to the mix that the F35B is not a Harrier. One of its main attributes is its situational awareness and ability to land with a lot less human input and stress compared to the Harrier it replaces.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the above matter and are much better than a MK one eyeball.
Yet its still a fair question.
As is ................................what F35 B capacity could we get from the Canberra Class with just heat treating the deck?

If not for us, I'm sure the US Marines would be interested.

Regards S

 

[SpazSinbad]

I'm not sure now who said it however someone suggested that USMC F-35Bs will not cross deck aboard our LHDs even if it is an emergency (I find that last part very difficult to believe). However it seems that is THE VIBE from our RAN about such matters. Perhaps they'll let the more polite UK Joint Force F-35Bs onboard? With the current deck coating that would be kaput near/at the spot of the VL with FOD hazard perhaps during the VL then some effort to ameliorate that before replacing said coating. However the current deck coating may well be able to stand one use. I can only guess, but NOT withstand prolonged use.

The F-35B is a STEALTH aircraft with the LUNEBERG Lens removed (used mostly during peace time ops to hide true stealth capability). Probably with wheels down and bin lid open the F-35B may be seen during an approach to VL but not when clean out and about. It would be nice to have JPALS installed because that is 'stealthy' allowing the aircraft to find the ship out some hundreds of miles without either revealing their whereabouts and a bonus in the future JPALS can provide an automatic VL. Currently it allows an approach to the hover alongside a JPALS equipped LHA but not CVF at moment - JPALS will be installed later. Perhaps like the PoW JPALS will be installed with the Bedford Array (which is to be fitted to QE later).

And yes the F-35B is NOT a helicopter (a bunch of bits not always secured just waiting to fly apart at a moments notice or not). When in STOVL Mode 4 (for VL or STO) the pilot will be automatically ejected from the F-35B within 0.5 seconds whether he/she wants to or not. But I digress. All the ammo and fuel stuff? Dunno. How about a small contingent of say four F-35Bs onboard for FLEET DEFENCE - as / when required - which may be NEVER but of course training needs to be done. Still no word on how the RAAF will provide FLEET DEFENCE so I guess the LHDs at moment are big trucks for the peace time use of. Yes small steps and all however I'm looking to the future whilst the former CoN stated in a speech that our LHDs are WARSHIPS. He really did not define what that meant though. I believe around 2020 we may have more official discussion about these matters along with the decision about the last tranche of F-35s for Oz - or not.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think that IF the CoA decides to take fast jets to sea once more and IF they do, logic would suggest the F-35B, then logic would suggest a modernised Juan Carlos 1 variant as a strict CV and nothing else. This would give some commonality with the Canberra Class LHD already in service. However I am also very aware of the oxymoronic connotations of using logic and pollies in the same sentence. I currently cannot see this happening because the political will does not exist and the continual factionalism and infighting within Australian politics precludes any long term certainty of good defence planning at the political level.

 

[Stampede]

Thanks SpacSinbad

I wonder what sort of cost and time would be involved for the introduction of a JPALS.

As to Fleet defence - Does the RAAF actually practise today 24 / 7 Air cover of a task group.
Could be nothing more than testing the concept off the NSW coast with Aircraft out of RAAF Williamstown.

As to providing 24/7 air coverage of the fleet sailing the other 35000km of coast line or more realistically at distance form shore I can only guess.

The LHD's are of course warships because they are painted grey !!!!!!

Agree that in the 2020's there will have to be some clarity on future of what types of aircraft will serve with the RAAF.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

I think that IF the CoA decides to take fast jets to sea once more and IF they do, logic would suggest the F-35B, then logic would suggest a modernised Juan Carlos 1 variant as a strict CV and nothing else. This would give some commonality with the Canberra Class LHD already in service. However I am also very aware of the oxymoronic connotations of using logic and pollies in the same sentence. I currently cannot see this happening because the political will does not exist and the continual factionalism and infighting within Australian politics precludes any long term certainty of good defence planning at the political level.

Agree there is no political will for such a capability and should one side propose the concept I have no doubt it will be shot down by the other side.
Should defence want this capability and I'm not saying they do, it would have to be pushed hard by all three services to get traction.
Three services supported by the two major party's would be a difficult five stars to align.

Not confident

Regards S

 

[SpazSinbad]

Hmmm - I'm spaz and one hopes NOT 35,000 Kms off of any coast except perhaps outer space. I jest. Who knows what RAAF does regarding FLEET DEFENCE - I've seen no hint of an explanation except buzzwords about PLAN JERICHO. I trust it will get worked out with LHDs sometimes not venturing where there is no cover [and where it may be required] which is fair enough.

 

[Redlands18]

Here are some posts from 2014 commenting on operating F-35s off the Canberra's, page 13 this thread.

and that's a good example

bunkerage for phatships is not the same as above

That was what I was wondering, if the examples that Alexsa gave above on JC1's JP-5 capacity was directly comparable to the LHD's, obviously they aren't.

Engines (Steve's) article in AA should be made compulsory reading before further comment on this thread. Maybe we can publish in a sticky? It would certainly stop some of the ill-informed bs that regularly gets regurgitated here.

not a lot of room to be creative with - so it will be sabre saw time and someone will have to give something up

that always goes down well with "joint owners"

The first question I have is, is all fuel storage (for the ships themselves and the aircraft they carry), located in bunkers/tanks in the spaces between the keel and the heavy vehicle deck? It would seem the obviously location, but I'm sure someone will set me straight on that one.
Here is some Posts from 2014 from GF, John Newman & Assail concerning operating F-35Bs of the Canberra's, page 13 of this thread
If that is true, does that mean that on the LHD's the 'use or configuration' of fuel bunkers have been modified, as opposed to JC1, in that either more fuel capacity has been allocated for the ships fuel needs (possibly for increased range) and thereby reducing the capacity for JP-5, or does it mean that less tanks were installed during the build?

Just trying to get my head around (if the Government does give approval in the upcoming DCP for F-35B's to be eventually embarked on the LHD's), if there is 'unused' space that could be used for increased fuel capacity if required.


I'm thinking of this as a more permanent, safer and practical solution/modification rather than going down the path of fuel bladders or a module to be placed in the well dock, as some have suggested.

 

[hauritz]

During peacetime Australia's LHDs are worked hard training for an amphibious role. However if hostilities ever broke out it is conceivable that Australia would not even be required to conduct amphibious operations.

It seems like a potential waste of a valuable asset that the LHDs don't seem to have a secondary role at a time when just about every other nation is trying to squeeze as much capability as they can out of their flat tops.

 

[t68]

Thanks SpacSinbad

I wonder what sort of cost and time would be involved for the introduction of a JPALS.

As to Fleet defence - Does the RAAF actually practise today 24 / 7 Air cover of a task group.
Could be nothing more than testing the concept off the NSW coast with Aircraft out of RAAF Williamstown.

As to providing 24/7 air coverage of the fleet sailing the other 35000km of coast line or more realistically at distance form shore I can only guess.

The LHD's are of course warships because they are painted grey !!!!!!

Agree that in the 2020's there will have to be some clarity on future of what types of aircraft will serve with the RAAF.

Regards S

As most people say in all probability we will be working as part of a coalition so the LHD will come under the umbrella of allied fast air fleet defence, I just hope that in transit that a USN fleet carrier is hang around or one or two ships of the gator navy is in sea control mode with 20 F35B, but for the RAAF I have written sometime ago in the forum that we do not have the resources to conduct 24/7 long range CAP over the task group and meet other tasking as deemed necessary, ill have to go looking for it but Roland White book Phoenix Squadron has a good illustration when the RAF did an ex just like that to illustrate that it could provide fleet defence for the RN, the amount of resources it had taken was eye watering and from memory the further the fleet went the harder it got. We cannot rely on host nation support as they may not provide the facilities along the way.

David Baddams is correct proximity means capability, but four/six airframes will only provide BARCAP not 24/7 CAP

 

[Todjaeger]

During peacetime Australia's LHDs are worked hard training for an amphibious role. However if hostilities ever broke out it is conceivable that Australia would not even be required to conduct amphibious operations.

It seems like a potential waste of a valuable asset that the LHDs don't seem to have a secondary role at a time when just about every other nation is trying to squeeze as much capability as they can out of their flat tops.

Umm... what? As I understand it, the Canberra-class LHD's already have important roles in addition to/aside from 'just' the amphibious one. The vessel's potential as a task force command ship, much like how the Kanimbla-class LPA's were sometimes used, comes to mind immediately. The LHD's could also see use as a sort of 'mothership' supporting and sustaining a force of patrol boats and/or smallcraft to control the green/brown water areas. A similar sort of use could be made, but with embarked naval helicopters to provide improved area situational awareness, and/or a greater ASW screen and sanitization capability.

Not to mention the very real potential for hostilities to break out somewhere in the region, to which Australia responds by deploying troops and kit to neutralize a threat, stabilize an area, or guard/defend against potential hostiles. Consider, for instance, that Australia and/or the US re-invest in Manus Island and building up the infrastructure capabilities of the airfield and port, so that US and ADF personnel and kit could operate or be forward deployed from there. I could easily see the PRC and a number of other states and non-state actors taking an unhealthy interest in the place, depending on the circumstances. Under normal conditions I would not expect a full defending garrison to be maintained, but if hostilities were to break out, then I could see a need for defending troops and their kit. The LHD's and/or the LPD would be well suited to moving the personnel and their kit.

 

[DaveS124]

Mods, this was supposed to go in the JCI/LHD thread but somehow ended up here. Many apologies. I blame Gremlins.

Pretty sure GF had said.......

GF is wrong, no matter his exalted status around here. The LHD selection panel was headed by CDRE Paul Greenfield, RAN, not GF, and I assure you he rolls his eyes whenever he hears drivel about massive 'internal changes.' Greenfield, now a civilian also plays a part in the submarine matter, and was one of the unanimous voices to instantly torpedo the SORYU choice.

Internal changes below the island can be comprehensively described thus, not by Greenfield but by someone with primary knowledge of the hulls:

The constant claims that changes to the JCI design for the ADF make this difficult are, to put it tactfully, not as informed as they might be. The sole difference between the Spanish and Australian ships regarding this matter is the addition of an extra bulkhead in the magazine, incorporated at the behest of Lloyd’s, not the ADF or DoD. The difference in capacity barely even qualifies as negligible. The rest of refit is mostly one for screwdrivers, spanners and electricians. The one biggie is data management and security, and the designed spaces for that were retained in the ADF ships. The LHD selection was specifically tasked with minimising design changes, and the retention of all aviation spaces was deliberate.

On the matter of F-35Bs, I repeat what I posted a few months ago. It is in the mix for Air 6000 Phase 2C. The only comment by Leo Davies since he became CAF was during the Q&A session after a dinner speech in Canberra in July 2016. ASPI writers Andrew Davies and Malcolm Davis were there, and reported the matter thus:

we were surprised to hear the RAAF’s Chief list only manned aircraft as future possibilities during Q&A at his recent ASPI address. His shortlist included more Super Hornets, more conventional take-off F-35As or (interestingly) the F-35B ‘jump jet’ version.

That from ASPi Strategist site. The puff-piece writers in the glossy monthly air/defence magazines missed this rather important news, but then again that's to be expected from the writers of dressed-up PR-piffle, spoon fed to them by ADF types chasing torrents of time and column centimetres of puffery. Those journalists do not know how 6000/2C will go any more than anyone else, no matter their claims to inside info.

For what it's worth, I think the chances of ADF embarked STOVL are zero. There's just too much institutional hostility by the RAAF and Defence to embarked fixed wing, no matter the affordability and desirability of the capability. ADF will have to hope and pray that an ally can pop-up with embarked F-35s when the LHDs or ASW task groups need air defence, strike, organic ISR, CEC-network fire control and all the rest.

 

[t68]

@DaveS124

Was the below part of the puff price you describe or from another source?

The constant claims that changes to the JCI design for the ADF make this difficult are, to put it tactfully, not as informed as they might be. The sole difference between the Spanish and Australian ships regarding this matter is the addition of an extra bulkhead in the magazine, incorporated at the behest of Lloyd’s, not the ADF or DoD. The difference in capacity barely even qualifies as negligible. The rest of refit is mostly one for screwdrivers, spanners and electricians. The one biggie is data management and security, and the designed spaces for that were retained in the ADF ships. The LHD selection was specifically tasked with minimising design changes, and the retention of all aviation spaces was deliberate.

 

[ngatimozart]

@DaveS124

Cdre Greenfield may have run the selection panel for the LHD selection and is entitled to roll his eyes when he reads things that he diagrees with. However it is for him to refute such claims and not for others to do so in his name.

Secondly regarding GF and his status here and within the ADF, I would be surprised if he was not known professionally to Cdre Greenfield because prior to his retirement a year ago GF was / is well known within the higher echelons of the RAN and the ADF.

So before you go criticising a defence professionals credentials on here, I suggest very strongly that you check them out. In GF's case you may find that his security and professional credentials are higher than your Cdres.

Can you also provide a link to the ASPI article you quoted in your post (Intellectual Property rules apply) and links to the aviation magazine puff pieces.

 

[SpazSinbad]

@DaveS124

Was the below part of the puff price you describe or from another source?

That 'quote' is more or less what I have been told by 'people also in the know' via e-mail however I cannot quote them. As mentioned perhaps 2020 we will know more. It is a pity that the 'report/investigation' instigated by the then PM & then DefMin (Abbott and whatshisname) was not published even in redacted form. Until more details are known from official sources this argybargy about what prevents even an F-35B from using the LHD deck in emergencies will go on and on with he said she said head shed stuff around. Sentence quoted below was what was the aim of the LHD selection all those years ago to save money (& the ski jump!).

"...The LHD selection was specifically tasked with minimising design changes, and the retention of all aviation spaces was deliberate."

'Robert Henderson' made that quote in a comment on the STEVE GEORGE Jan 2017 article here:

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

 

[t68]

I have heard that internal cutout is different is lighting power points etc but is shore power to ships a universal standard or are each nation different when it come to plugging into shore power?

Aus standards 240volts US 110 volts?

 

[SpazSinbad]

Now you really stretch my memory. However I can google it. The F-35s require a specific power which the USN did not have on their vessels for example and IIRC neither did USAF so 'special power' requirements needed for F-35 use onboard amongst a myriad (hopefully small) other things such as secure briefing spaces and more that naysayers will surely tell us.

"The F-35 needs 270v DC ground power, not 400 Hz. It also needs high-pressure cold dry air supplied to it for ground operations. How To Supply Power And Air For The F-35

"...The 270VDC Power Converter is a four-wheeled, manually propelled vehicle designed for flight deck conditions as well as land operations...." F-35 Electric Ground Power Unit

&
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2013/02/F35-depot-power.html