Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

iambuzzard said:
Yes, take a lead from the Japanese and upgrade the flight deck to be able to operate F-35Bs. Even if we don't get our own aircraft we need the crossdeck capability. If we end up in a hot war our allies are going to need alternative landing platforms.
Click to expand...
If things went to crap..could allied F35s land and refuel and take off again from a Canberra anyway?,
.
 
Bob53 said:
If things went to crap..could allied F35s land and refuel and take off again from a Canberra anyway?,
.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the Canberra’s differ from the original Juan Carlos I in that they are optimised for carriage of Army troops and equipment with helicopters as the only aviation component. Thus, they have much smaller aviation fuel storage due to helicopters being a lot less thirsty than Harriers or F-35B’s.

Also, the flight deck would need to have a thermal barrier coating applied as the jet exhaust of the F-35B is hot enough to cause damage to a non-coated deck - much hotter than the Harrier’s exhaust.
 
Bob53 said:
If things went to crap..could allied F35s land and refuel and take off again from a Canberra anyway?,
.
Click to expand...
We would need to strengthen and upgrade the surface of the flightdeck and have trained crew on board. The service experts on here would know better than me
Going Boeing said:
My understanding is that the Canberra’s differ from the original Juan Carlos I in that they are optimised for carriage of Army troops and equipment with helicopters as the only aviation component. Thus, they have much smaller aviation fuel storage due to helicopters being a lot less thirsty than Harriers or F-35B’s.

Also, the flight deck would need to have a thermal barrier coating applied as the jet exhaust of the F-35B is hot enough to cause damage to a non-coated deck - much hotter than the Harrier’s exhaust.
Click to expand...
I was aware of the differences, just not as knowledgeable as you guys about the technicalities around the differences.
 
iambuzzard said:
Yes, take a lead from the Japanese and upgrade the flight deck to be able to operate F-35Bs. Even if we don't get our own aircraft we need the crossdeck capability. If we end up in a hot war our allies are going to need alternative landing platforms.
Click to expand...
If the US ever finds itself so short of flight decks that the only place for F35s to go is one of the RANs LHDs then the world will be in real trouble.
 
Going Boeing said:
My understanding is that the Canberra’s differ from the original Juan Carlos I in that they are optimised for carriage of Army troops and equipment with helicopters as the only aviation component. Thus, they have much smaller aviation fuel storage due to helicopters being a lot less thirsty than Harriers or F-35B’s.

Also, the flight deck would need to have a thermal barrier coating applied as the jet exhaust of the F-35B is hot enough to cause damage to a non-coated deck - much hotter than the Harrier’s exhaust.
Click to expand...

IIRC aviation fuel bunkerage was one issue. I seem to recall the Canberra-class having space/displacement for up to 800 tonnes of aviation fuel which works out to around 100 sorties with full fuel load. Another problem area would be magazine storage and access for F-35 ordnance. No idea how much space or displacement is available for that, but if adequate aviation magazine capacity was not designed in, then any regular tempo of F-35 ops would likely force an LHD to be refueled and/or replenished by an AOR very frequently. A back of the napkin calculation suggests that a force of eight F-35's operating from a RAN LHD, with each aircraft conducting three sorties per day, could empty the onboard aviation fuel supply in about four days.
 
Todjaeger said:
IIRC aviation fuel bunkerage was one issue. I seem to recall the Canberra-class having space/displacement for up to 800 tonnes of aviation fuel which works out to around 100 sorties with full fuel load. Another problem area would be magazine storage and access for F-35 ordnance. No idea how much space or displacement is available for that, but if adequate aviation magazine capacity was not designed in, then any regular tempo of F-35 ops would likely force an LHD to be refueled and/or replenished by an AOR very frequently. A back of the napkin calculation suggests that a force of eight F-35's operating from a RAN LHD, with each aircraft conducting three sorties per day, could empty the onboard aviation fuel supply in about four days.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the internal fuel load on an F-35B is about six tonnes, so you could get at least an extra day on those figures, though whether you could maintain such a sortie rate for four or five days is a good question in itself. Your point stands. The Canberras are far from ideal for F-35B operations other than for training perhaps.
 
Anthony_B_78 said:
IIRC, the internal fuel load on an F-35B is about six tonnes, so you could get at least an extra day on those figures, though whether you could maintain such a sortie rate for four or five days is a good question in itself. Your point stands. The Canberras are far from ideal for F-35B operations other than for training perhaps.
Click to expand...
Is there any merit in looking at a dedicated new LHD with F-35 capability?
I know this has been thrashed about before and is pretty well unlikely but what would be required?
I don't want to open a can of worms and I'm aware of our limitations. This is just hypothetical, of course.
 
iambuzzard said:
Is there any merit in looking at a dedicated new LHD with F-35 capability?
I know this has been thrashed about before and is pretty well unlikely but what would be required?
I don't want to open a can of worms and I'm aware of our limitations. This is just hypothetical, of course.
Click to expand...

One of the first things it would need would be an enormous amount of funding. The cost in 2007 dollars was ~AUD$1.5 bil. per vessel and now nearly 20 years later would likely approach twice that amount before any modifications or improvements to fast jet ops and handling.

Then the ADF would also need to pay for more F-35's which could then operate from said new vessel, as well as raising all the formations necessary to operate and sustain the new force of F-35's and their support vessel. Additionally, adding such a new, additional and very much high value target would likely then require further expansion of RAN escort forces, requiring yet more funding for the kit and more still to for all the additional personnel.

It is one of those things which, whilst theoretically possible, rapidly becomes quite difficult, time consuming and expensive because it is not just as simple as getting another vessel.

Anthony_B_78 said:
IIRC, the internal fuel load on an F-35B is about six tonnes, so you could get at least an extra day on those figures, though whether you could maintain such a sortie rate for four or five days is a good question in itself. Your point stands. The Canberras are far from ideal for F-35B operations other than for training perhaps.
Click to expand...

Read through a few other things and it does appear the F-35B internal fuel capacity is around 6 tonnes, some sources listing just under 6,000 kg of internal fuel and others listing just over 6,000 kg. That might change the rough calc numbers so there is enough fuel for more than five days of sorties by 8 aircraft @3 sorties per day. Better but not IMO a significant difference, never mind the magazine capacity issue.
 
iambuzzard said:
Is there any merit in looking at a dedicated new LHD with F-35 capability?
I know this has been thrashed about before and is pretty well unlikely but what would be required?
I don't want to open a can of worms and I'm aware of our limitations. This is just hypothetical, of course.
Click to expand...

I can't see the value.

An F35A has a combat radius of about 1,000km without refuelling. Just about everywhere in the S China Sea is within this range for a friendly shoreline.

We wouldn't be operating LHDs or our people in unfriendly territories, so assume most of S E Asian countries support our presence in a conflict.

In that scenario it would be logistically simpler (and more defendable) to forward base our F35s from land and move them around the scores of allied airfields as needed.

I would view it would be better to use the LHDs (as currently designed) as heavy transporters to get ground equipment into theatre in bulk. In that context helicopters are more useful than figher aircraft.
 
SammyC said:
I can't see the value.

An F35A has a combat radius of about 1,000km without refuelling. Just about everywhere in the S China Sea is within this range for a friendly shoreline.

We wouldn't be operating LHDs or our people in unfriendly territories, so assume most of S E Asian countries support our presence in a conflict.

In that scenario it would be logistically simpler (and more defendable) to forward base our F35s from land and move them around the scores of allied airfields as needed.

I would view it would be better to use the LHDs (as currently designed) as heavy transporters to get ground equipment into theatre in bulk. In that context helicopters are more useful than figher aircraft.
Click to expand...
That's why I like this forum. You guys give rational answers. Cheers, Buzzard.
 
Stampede said:
Well done getting the opportunity to go on board Italy's carrier the ITS Cavour.

Thanks for the update re the OPV's.

Its like the Arafura Class does not exist so certainly looking forward to some info and pics for when HMAS Arafura finally enters service.


Cheers S
Click to expand...
How I managed to get onboard will make for a good dinner table story that's for sure.
Not particularly relevant so I won't type it out here but I will say it involved a random meeting with a particularly good-natured Air Commodore.
 
There may be a way a LHD can support F-35 ops other than having them land and take off from the LHD itself. We could offer a place for MV-22 refuellers to launch from, and in case of broken refueling, emergency landing, urgent rearming, second field, night ops, lilly padding from islands, UAV etc.

StevoJH said:
I honestly think cutting them back to 6 units was a mistake.
Click to expand...
I don't think the last one has been laid down, it is possible a future batch or something similar could happen. Even possibly overseas builds. All unlikely, but not impossible. But nothing is for free, Tier 2 GPF needs to come from somewhere.
 
StevoJH said:
Well when the Arafura class actually enter service the RAN shouldn't need to use Frigates to support border protection operations.

I honestly think cutting them back to 6 units was a mistake.
Click to expand...
The 6 should at least keep the majors out of that sort of work.
Aside from that the cut back was based on budgetary and personnel restrictions so to bring it back to 12 it may compromise the future plans as they currently sit.
 
Going Boeing said:
Also, the flight deck would need to have a thermal barrier coating applied as the jet exhaust of the F-35B is hot enough to cause damage to a non-coated deck - much hotter than the Harrier’s exhaust.
Click to expand...
The Canberra Class decks are thermal coated and rated, they are qualified to operate MV22's which cause similar problems and the F-35B, albeit the B's do have a higher temp, the coating developed by the US to cope with the Osprey's and B's is the same, so should not be an issue.
 
And 4 to 5 days is the normal refueling cycle. In high intensity ops it is usual to reammunition and if necessary reprovision in the same cycle so as to minimise time away from ops.
 
aussienscale said:
The Canberra Class decks are thermal coated and rated, they are qualified to operate MV22's which cause similar problems and the F-35B, albeit the B's do have a higher temp, the coating developed by the US to cope with the Osprey's and B's is the same, so should not be an issue.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I wasn't aware they were thermal coated.
 
aussienscale said:
The Canberra Class decks are thermal coated and rated, they are qualified to operate MV22's which cause similar problems and the F-35B, albeit the B's do have a higher temp, the coating developed by the US to cope with the Osprey's and B's is the same, so should not be an issue.
Click to expand...
If correct, that's interesting.
Certainly had the MV22's on the Canberra's flight deck a number of times.

Has a USMC AV-8B Harrier landed on the Canberra Class?
I'd suspect not as it would of being promoted in defence media circles.

Most puzzling

Cheers S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top