Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Yuma_17_AH-1Z_3171-1.jpg

Yuma_17_MV-22_0952-1.jpg

Yuma_17_AV-8B_2497-1.jpg

Yuma_17_P-51_2653-1.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

This is a discussion on Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 4.00 average.
Old March 22nd, 2013   #61
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 241
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
I found these stats for you AD about V22 and chinook, when I was looking for infomation on the LHD crane and lift capacity.

http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/user...tia_ingles.pdf


The fl ight deck has been designed to operate, launch,
receive and provide support, both day and night, to planes
and helicopters such as the third Squadron’s AB-212, the
fi fth Squadron’s SH-3D, and the ninth Squadron’s AV-8B
Harrier II Plus. As well as the aircraft in service with the
Navy, the ship is able to receive the Army’s CH-47 Chinook,
Eurocopter Cougar and Tiger as well as the NH-90 when it
enters into service with the Navy and with the Spanish Army.
In a signifi cant qualitative leap, this ship is also designed to
operate with the STOVL version of the JSF, the F-35B Lighting II,
if the Spanish Navy decides to acquire this exceptional plane.
A touchdown point has also been reserved astern of the fl ight
deck that is specially adapted (in dimensions and resistance)
for the special needs of the new V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.
For the transfer of aircraft between the hanger and the fl ight
deck, the Juan Carlos I has two elevators, each with a capacity
of 25 tonnes and suffi cient 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
profi le. This means an area of 1,000 m2 would be available
for an amphibious type profi le. 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 profi le. 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 suffi cient 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 profi les, or between
10 and 12 F35B planes or AV-8B+, plus a similar number of
medium-sized helicopters when acting with an aircraft carrier
mission profi le at times when the Príncipe de Asturias R-11 is
not operational.
Spanish carrier Principe de Asturias have beeen paid off and retired of service just a few weeks ago , the carrier will be scrapped in a few months due to cuts because the massive economy crisis in Spain.
This will leave only the lhd Juan Carlos I as the operational "carrier" in the future.
overlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2013   #62
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,752
Threads:
That's already been covered in the thread earlier & the doc's probably older than the decision to get rid of her.

Not to mention rather pointless in regards to the thrust of t68's point.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2013   #63
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5
Threads:
This is somewhat oftopic (also my first post!) but I'll take the dive anyway:

I see the Canberra Class as a signal the Defence Force is moving towards a more counterinsurgency role, the US's deputy sheriff as an ex-PM used to say. The LHD may have an impressive conventional use as an ASW bus, or if you load the F-35 (b) aboard, which we're not planning on doing. But clearly the best use of features like the landing bay, the huge carrying capacity, the hospital, the helicopter pads, and the troop transport capacity is in the context of an East Timor/Solomans-type intervention in our immediate area.

As far as I can see this is a multi-billion dollar investment in unilateral COIN operations in the Arc of Instability.

If this is unbelievably obvious, please tell me.

As an addendum: why isn't RAAF buying some F-35 (b)s? Surely that would be a force multiplier for both assets?
Lt. Fred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2013   #64
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,752
Threads:
I don't see it as an investment in COIN operations, I see it as a major investment in power projection in the form of amphibious operations.

By-products like humanitarian aid relief etc exist due to the nature of ships like this, they are pretty helpful tools to have but by no means a main driver.

Nor do I expect to see it loaded up with ASW helos, they'll probably be aboard sure, but I don't see any JC1 acting like a ASW cruiser in a task group. Much more likely will be a TAG with a main component of troop carrying helos IMO.

As for the B's, well with the amount of concern about buying the A about, i'd hate to imagine what throwing in some more expensive B's into the equation.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2013   #65
Defense Aficionado
Major General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,495
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
I don't see it as an investment in COIN operations, I see it as a major investment in power projection in the form of amphibious operations.

By-products like humanitarian aid relief etc exist due to the nature of ships like this, they are pretty helpful tools to have but by no means a main driver.

Nor do I expect to see it loaded up with ASW helos, they'll probably be aboard sure, but I don't see any JC1 acting like a ASW cruiser in a task group. Much more likely will be a TAG with a main component of troop carrying helos IMO.

As for the B's, well with the amount of concern about buying the A about, i'd hate to imagine what throwing in some more expensive B's into the equation.
I agree not likely to happen unless at a direct request from a foreign military (USN/RN).even at the height of Australia’s commitments in the Vietnam War, HMAS Melbourne was not utilized as an ASW patrol carrier because of her limited time on station and the RAN did not have enough escorts with the prior commitments the RAN was pretty much stressed at the time.

I would imagine a Canberra class LHD would even be capable of keeping up with a CBG task force on the move unless its sanitizing a certain area before the CBG arrives on station. But that would be a gross miss use of the ship.

If the RAN wanted to play a larger role in ASW operations which would enhance its interoperability with a larger foreign fleet (USN/RN CBG) either the RAN acquire its own ASW light carriers in either a helicopter only capable Hyuga class carrier or a larger Cavour class which is capable of combined fast jet/helicopter operations working with these should be 3 ASW corvettes/Frigates and the Canberra’s should be utilized for their intended role Amphibious assault.

I also don’t see a problem with the RAN/RAAF getting the 36/48 F35B if all goes well in addition to the 100 F35A, not only could we forward deploy on a Cavour Light Carrier to give ASW and top cover to the LHD but it also gives the RAAF more options on where it can operate in using Flexible Expeditionary Basing something that the USMC do with the Harrier.

The Harrier And Flexible Expeditionary Basing: Leap-Frogging Forward And Controlling the Op Tempo | SLDInfo
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2013   #66
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,752
Threads:
Oh don't get me wrong, i'd rather like the idea of Aus operating F35B's off their LHDs, my reservation is merely due to the current to-do about the cost of the current plans and the idea of throwing in another more complex element into the mix.

Something i'm rather interested to know about would be the potential to operate Tigers off her, operating attack helos off the decks of amphibious assault ships is something i'm rather keen on.

I'm not going to comment about RAN ASW operations, all i'll say is that a decent ASW optimised frigate could be just the ticket *Type 26*
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2013   #67
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,282
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
Oh don't get me wrong, i'd rather like the idea of Aus operating F35B's off their LHDs, my reservation is merely due to the current to-do about the cost of the current plans and the idea of throwing in another more complex element into the mix.

Something i'm rather interested to know about would be the potential to operate Tigers off her, operating attack helos off the decks of amphibious assault ships is something i'm rather keen on.

I'm not going to comment about RAN ASW operations, all i'll say is that a decent ASW optimised frigate could be just the ticket *Type 26*
I would definately rather additional hulls rather than diluting the planned role of the LHDs. A proper light carrier force could be acquired in place of some of the GP frigates postulated to replace the ANZACs next decade so long as additional destroyers are also aquired and some of the proposed OCVs are morphed into proper corvettes or light frigates.

Leave out the cruise missile requirement and there is no reason a corvette couldn't be significantly more capable and smaller (also with less crew) than an ANZAC. In fact design the OCV in such a way that the systems from the modernised ANZACs can simply be inserted in the new ships, the enhanced combat system, new sensors and the VLS, possibably even the 5" Gun but I feel a 76mm with DART and VULCANO would be a better investment and easier to fit on a smaller hull.

Eight corvettes with five or six AWDs and we would probably have the crew spare for two or three small carriers. These carriers cold be swung to back up the LHDs as mini LPHs as required more easily than an LHD could be swung into the carrier role.
Volkodav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2013   #68
Defense Aficionado
Major General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,495
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
Oh don't get me wrong, i'd rather like the idea of Aus operating F35B's off their LHDs, my reservation is merely due to the current to-do about the cost of the current plans and the idea of throwing in another more complex element into the mix.

Something i'm rather interested to know about would be the potential to operate Tigers off her, operating attack helos off the decks of amphibious assault ships is something i'm rather keen on.
Certainly makes for an interesting idea, if at the time K Rudd was still PM and we had operational Tiger and LHD or HMAS Kanimbla in a fit state, would he have committed Australia to assist the rebels or use the asset to evacuate Australian nationals using LHD and Blackhawk helicopters. Easy to argue others to do things that we are not capable of doing ourselves. If and when Tiger ARH reaches full IOC she should be capable of operations of either LHD or HMAS Choules.

Rudd ramps up call for Libya no-fly zone

Nato strike force in Libya enjoys quick success with apache gunships | World news | The Guardian

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
I'm not going to comment about RAN ASW operations, all i'll say is that a decent ASW optimised frigate could be just the ticket *Type 26*
I rather fancy the idea of a 4 ship ASW task force comprising 1x Hyuga with 6x MH-60R and 3x Spanish BAMS each with a single MH-60R.Never going to happen but she certainly could do a lot of damage assisting with ASW and Tiger ARH ops in either a CBG or ARG.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013   #69
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,519
Threads:
Would Choules be able to operate a tiger? I didn't think it had things like weapon lifts, specific easy to access weapon stores etc. Im sure it could land and take off but combat operations day and night, frequent rearming etc? And how many? 1 tiger? 2 tigers? I would assume you would want other helos operating from it moving stores etc.

I would imagine the LHD would be the preferred platform for those type of operations. Hence why I think 3 is really what we need to be able to sustain 1 on deployment and surge 2 for big operations. You would want a LHD, and if you needed tiger support, then I would assume at least 2-3 tigers to ensure that they are available when needed.

Which to be honest is all the air combat power that is going to fly off the Canberra class. In the type of missions we would take on, say 6 tigers backed up by land based fixed wing (F-18, F35, etc) is all we really conceivably need. Anything large and hard can be taken out in an orderly fashion by strike aircraft, the tigers would just be CAS, recon, etc. Looking through the region, its not like we need carrier based air in our immediate area. In any operation afar we would be under US/UK air power.

Tigers would most likely be more useful, actually eyeballing the target, able to assess situation risks etc.

We need to spend money in other areas, like getting 4 AWD's. Then you have the stuff the other services would also like that would be far more useful than a carrier.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013   #70
Defense Aficionado
Major General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,495
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
Would Choules be able to operate a tiger? I didn't think it had things like weapon lifts, specific easy to access weapon stores etc. Im sure it could land and take off but combat operations day and night, frequent rearming etc? And how many? 1 tiger? 2 tigers? I would assume you would want other helos operating from it moving stores etc.

I would imagine the LHD would be the preferred platform for those type of operations. Hence why I think 3 is really what we need to be able to sustain 1 on deployment and surge 2 for big operations. You would want a LHD, and if you needed tiger support, then I would assume at least 2-3 tigers to ensure that they are available when needed.

Which to be honest is all the air combat power that is going to fly off the Canberra class. In the type of missions we would take on, say 6 tigers backed up by land based fixed wing (F-18, F35, etc) is all we really conceivably need. Anything large and hard can be taken out in an orderly fashion by strike aircraft, the tigers would just be CAS, recon, etc. Looking through the region, its not like we need carrier based air in our immediate area. In any operation afar we would be under US/UK air power.

Tigers would most likely be more useful, actually eyeballing the target, able to assess situation risks etc.

We need to spend money in other areas, like getting 4 AWD's. Then you have the stuff the other services would also like that would be far more useful than a carrier.

Operating ARH helicopters off Choules would only be conceivable as a stop gap until a LHD was available. It's doable but unde very limited circumstances.

Agreed we need that third LHD and doubling the AWD fleet to 6, 8 should be the max 4 spread east/west but getting a fourth is going to be hard enough.

As a side discussion in the RAN thread I have advocated that all the ACPB be placed with customs and border protection and making the RAN more interoperable with USN/RN with enhanced ASWcapabiltys with either a Hyuga or Cavour class light carriers operating with Spanish BAM.Abraham has suggested a very good idea about free up RAN pers with a version of our own RFA and using civilliam crewing for our auxiliary fleet.

I cannot conceive an Australian goverment ever doing a highly contested landing using LHD in the future, something like ET maybe but not a high intensity oppossed landing. Now with the US focussing the Pacfic arena this is something the RAN can really focus on ASW/ASuW and which the USN would surely need now that LCS is more multi-role for use within the littorals. A four ship ASW task group sanatizing an area for either a CBG or a MEU would more than welcome from the USN/RN
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013   #71
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
King Wally's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 215
Threads:
The First LHD should arive early next year (January acording to the RAN web site).... so we'd have to be unlucky to need to deploy an amphibious group with ARH before then.

From what I understand the Choules hanger is very limited. I beleive it was retro fitted to the deck after we got the ship from the poms. Your best bet if something were to go down would be to secure a landing strip somewhere near the hot point and fly the ARH over in heavy lift aircraft (Globemaster etc) and go from there. That way you can keep the limited Choules facilities for MHR90 / Chinook etc to handle the heavy leg work of the amphibious operation.

Obviously once the LHD hits the water in the new year we have a bloody brillant option right there and its less of a headache.
King Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013   #72
Defense Aficionado
Major General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,495
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Wally View Post
The First LHD should arive early next year (January acording to the RAN web site).... so we'd have to be unlucky to need to deploy an amphibious group with ARH before then.

From what I understand the Choules hanger is very limited. I beleive it was retro fitted to the deck after we got the ship from the poms. Your best bet if something were to go down would be to secure a landing strip somewhere near the hot point and fly the ARH over in heavy lift aircraft (Globemaster etc) and go from there. That way you can keep the limited Choules facilities for MHR90 / Chinook etc to handle the heavy leg work of the amphibious operation.

Obviously once the LHD hits the water in the new year we have a bloody brillant option right there and its less of a headache.

I think it's a moot point anyway with bill and Ben gone and Choules down with troubles, ARH hasn't been signed off on any of the amphibs anyway and LHD won't be fully worked up till 2017 I believe.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2013   #73
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,797
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
I think it's a moot point anyway with bill and Ben gone and Choules down with troubles, ARH hasn't been signed off on any of the amphibs anyway and LHD won't be fully worked up till 2017 I believe.
Part of being"fully worked up" is qualifying all the ADF helos for deck landings, day and night, onboard maintenance and to prove operating cycles on both LHD's all culminating in Talisman Sabre - 2017. Helo ops will begin well before that.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2013   #74
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
King Wally's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 215
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
Part of being"fully worked up" is qualifying all the ADF helos for deck landings, day and night, onboard maintenance and to prove operating cycles on both LHD's all culminating in Talisman Sabre - 2017. Helo ops will begin well before that.
Nothing happens fast when it comes to procurement hey. Its one of the most striking things I've learnt since lurking around these forums. As a civvy you asume ... say the ADF picks up some new toy that its instantly available to throw into combat if need be. Reality seams to be a much slower drawn out process.
King Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2013   #75
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 974
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Wally View Post
say the ADF picks up some new toy that its instantly available to throw into combat if need be.
In reality, it often is. It's just that the tolerance for risk when we are not actually at war is pretty low. Go back to WWII, and pilots would fly a new type of plane they'd never flown before straight into combat on the first sortie. If a certain percentage of them fell out of the sky because they didn't know what they were doing, or the plane didn't work properly, so be it. Far more were dropping out of the sky for other reasons, like ze Germans, so who really cared? In today's day and age, not so much.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:39 AM.