To summaryze, i dont agree when some people say that the lhd cant do whatever with jets, if someone states that i have my right to reply. Canberras are other thing as planned, fully helo, ok. But if they want to put f35b´s they can do it. My statements about that issue are replies almost always.
I dont agree why you have to be "annoyed" or whatever, no one forces anyone to enter in the thread and read and write, myself i am talking for debate not for trolling etc.
I suspect the reasons others have been getting annoyed about you and others repeatedly banging on the "
Canberra-class LHD's can operate F-35B's drum" is that a number of practical realities are ignored.
For instance, Spain, which under certain circumstances do plan on having F-35B's fly off from, as well as land back onto the JCI, will not be "operating" the F-35B from the JCI. And what I mean by "operating" is that the F-35B's flying to and from the JCI will not be carrying out operational tasks or sorties. Rather, the flights will be made for the purposes of training or maintaining flight skills from a vessel while the actual Spanish carrier is unavailable due to maintenance, repairs, etc.
Part of the reason why the JCI would not be deployed as a carrier is that despite the ski-jump and ability to have F-35B's takeoff and land, it does not have the appropriate layout and vessel infrastructure to properly support F-35B's flying missions. It would make a great ferry to and from an area, but the ability to conduct sustained mission ops would be very limited, at best. The internal layout lacks the fuel bunkerage to allow rapid and sustained refueling of the fighters, and there is also insufficient and inappropriate space for aircraft munitions. While I suppose that a pallet of 2,000 lb Mk 82 bombs could just be left on a skid in a hold, that to me is asking for the ship to be badly damaged or sunk due to a simple accident. Which is why weapons are stored in magazines aboard ship.
After the same idea has been trotted out, the repetition, of both the idea(s) and why they are unrealistic, impractical, or just all around bad, gets wearisome. Especially when the same person keeps repeating them. Such behavior makes others think that the person who keeps repeated their same ideas, despite explanations which run counter to their ideas, makes others think the person is not listening and thinking through what they are being told.
One other idea, or rather, a historical example to consider in the context of carrier ops. The RN carrier experience during the 1982 Falklands war. Some people within this thread have suggested that the air defence screen can be adequately provided by the AWD and that a CAP would not be needed... Given the limitations of a sea or ground-based IADS, that does not seem like a reasonable option. Particularly if there is the ability to operate aircraft from a ship, which is the capability being protected. A defence based upon area air defence ships acting as pickets is limited by four things, the sensor limitations of the ships themselves, the ability of the various ships to illuminate their targets, the capabilities of the missiles themselves, as well as just how many missiles the various ships can carry.
Again within the context of the RAN, the hypothetical CBG would likely only have a single
Hobart-class AWD acting as the primary area air defence ship. I could be mistaken, but I would imagine that the
Hobart would likely stay within visual range of the "RAN CV" which would mean being within ~18 n miles. With the current generation of Standard missiles available, this means that the
Hobart could potentially engage targets up to ~100 miles away from the RAN CV. By the same token, the AWD might not be able to detect inbound targets if they are flying "on the deck" until they close to within ~45 n miles, which might put them within ~30 n miles of the CV unless there is some form of air presence maintained. As a practical matter, I would expect that the CV's sensors would detect an inbound prior to that, although not necessarily as effectively as the AWD. What can make this situation worse, if just picket ships were relied upon, is that with the growth in standoff weaponry, the AWD might know and be able to detect the launches of AShM, all it would be able to do is intercept them, since the launching aircraft could stay safely outside of the range of the Standard missiles aboard the AWD. That is where something like CAP comes into play, the CAP could potentially intercept the missile-launching aircraft, either before, during or after missile launch, and effect the outcome of the engagement significantly, in ways that shipboard air defence is unable to.
-Cheers
