Amphibious ships and air power

[alexsa]

Looking at the IZAR (Navatia) LHD design being touted as a prospect for the Anphibous ship project your would have to sumise the the ship is intended to operate VSOL aircraft (F35/B perhaps). Even the base model Mistral (shown below) is capable in this respect

http://www.armarisgroup.com/uk/euronaval/images/mistral3.jpghttp://www.armarisgroup.com/uk/euronaval/images/mistral1.jpg

but it noted the version beng considered for RAN service is 4000 tonnes heavier. How realistic is it to expect that we may see RAN fixed wing air power in the next decade or so?

 

[Jason_kiwi]

Will the new amphibious ship be able to transport fighter aircaft?
Is there any idea of the length of the ship?

 

[nz enthusiast]

Well from what i can see from them rather tiny pics, the ships don't have a ramp runway, which probably mean that if the runway is to short you would have to take off vertially.
I'm sure that Australia is probably considering essentualy 'mini' aircraft carriers, otherwise I don't see the point in them having such large vessels.

 

[Jason_kiwi]

When you say 'big' so you mean about 170m??

 

[nz enthusiast]

Well i looked up the mistral, from what i see i don't think it is compable to have fighters take off from its decks. There is no ramp, there may not be enough run way. I looked it up on www.globalsecurity.com
i cant seem to find anything on the navatia or whatever it is. Help me find soemthing.

 

[Corwin]

Do a google search on Izar strategic projection ship. I believe the company reecently changed its name to Navantia. The ships length appears to be listed at 231 m or 3000 square meters of deck space.

 

[Supe]

How realistic is it to expect that we may see RAN fixed wing air power in the next decade or so?

If information about JSF procurment costs ballooning are correct, then I'd highly doubt it. Having said that, I think the ship configuration and selection should have a possible JSF buy in mind. Even wiithout the fixed wing aircraft, these ships will be an awesome asset in the RAN fleet. I am reading rumours of the Sea Kings being retired... possible acquistion of NH90's on the agenda?

I quite like Navantia's SPS.

 

[alexsa]

One of the Navantia design variations already incorproates a ski jump. As noted at the start of the thread the Mistral options that mya be considered is the orignal full size design which is quite a bit bigger than the 21000 Mistral recently launched by the French. In this case this could concievibly be fitted with a ski jump as well.

Originally Posted by Supe

If information about JSF procurment costs ballooning are correct, then I'd highly doubt it.

I have not seen any confirmed reprots that the JSF cost have blown out disproportionately to what could have been expected. If we are buying the F-35A then there would be some synergy in considering the F-35B as well, or in lieu of part of the 100 or so F-35A allocated to the RAAF.

The reason for the tread was to ask if anybody had heard is this is being seriously considered as part of the project.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Robert HILL stated just last week during an interview that the original AIR 6000 budget "should" still be sufficient to acquire "up to" 100 aircraft. It's a little bit ambiguous with all those "shoulds" and "up to's" but I'd guess we'll get something close to this (maybe 85-90 in the end).

I think Australia will continue to operate at least 4 Squadrons of fighter aircraft, plus the OCU's and attrition aircraft and this requires 80+ aircraft.

Robert HILL also stated that the ADF is "looking" at acquiring the F-35B option, but no decision has been made yet. But then again no decision has been made on the JSF at ALL.

Much as I dislike the JSF, I think 3 squadrons of F-35A's will be acquired and 1 squadron of F-35B's will be acquired in the end...

I can't see the ADF acquiring UCAV's before 2020. Look how long it's taking them to acquire a tactical unmanned aerial vehicle...

 

[Jason_kiwi]

Australia currently has about 120 aircraft dropping down to 80 is a big drop

 

[Aussie Digger]

Actually Australia only currently operates a total of 107 combat aircraft with 4 Squadrons of operational aircraft (3 F/A-18 Squadrons and 1 F-111 Squadron). The RAAF possesses 2 F-111 Squadrons in total (1 Squadron and 6 Squadron) however 6 Squadron is equipped with the F-111G which has little or no operational capability (it can drop dumb bombs, but no other weapons of any kind).

The F-111G airframes are only used for training and thanks to successive Labor and Liberal Governments have never been provided with the upgrades necessary to make them as capable as the operational F-111C's. The RAAF therefore currently operates 18 F-111C's, 4 RF-111 (recon platforms) and around 54 operational F/A-18's, giving a total combat fleet of 78. The other F/A-18's are also used as training, attrition, and research and development aircraft.

4 operational squadrons of JSF's would therefore provide the same number of usable operational platforms that we currently have, even though technically we currently have 5 squadrons...

 

[Jason_kiwi]

O ok. Mayby they should get a few mor F-35's then.

 

[cherry]

I can't see the ADF acquiring UCAV's before 2020. Look how long it's taking them to acquire a tactical unmanned aerial vehicle...

Totally agree, I think the ability of our decision makers will drag this option out for many years to come. Unfortunately this is typical of Government agencies, a huge lack of competence along with a huge lack of accountability. If such a small decision such as the JP129 took so long in a private company, the company would go bust and people would be sacked for their inabilities.

I think AIR6000 is going to be a huge disaster with the effects being felt for decades to come, and those who make the wrong decision will get off free. A public inquiry needs to be held before it is too late! JSF should be bought in small numbers and supplemented with a more able air-to-air fighter and long range strike platform. Without this, we will be left behind and become very vulnerable, all for saving a quick buck.

 

[Supe]

Finally some half decent pics of proposed LHD. Check out the fore section of the ship. What a waste of deckspace. What purpose does it serve to have what appears to be a bloody cruise liner sun deck?

pic1
pic2
Source


It sure would be nice to utilise the img tag rather than having to add as attachment or link to.

 

[Aussie Digger]

That's where the officer's relax on their jaunts overseas don't ye know? Seriously though, what Sun deck? Do you mean the flight deck or the ring underneath? If you're referring to the underneath bit, that's where the ESSM, CIWS and other short range defence systems are mounted. Better than cluttering up the flight deck...

 

[Supe]

Do you mean the flight deck or the ring underneath?

Yes. The ring underneath. I can see weapons mounted on the side and just below the flight deck but nothing on the fore deck. I think the design chosen should have as much (flight) deckspace as possible. I suppose the flight deck could be extended at a later date if the gov approves of re-establishing a fixed wing complement (or UCAVs) but why not do it right first time and save money, time and hassle in the process.

I'd love to know what the guys evaluting Navantia's proposal are thinking...and whether that 'ring' is a point of interest to them. Likewise, I'd like to know Navantia's reasoning for it.

It's frustrating that pics of the LHD's (particularly Navantia's LHD) are so hard to find and the one's you do find are often small and lacking in detail.

 

[alexsa]

I understand the model shown in the pictures is the vessel under construction for the Spanish Navy. I believe (I could be wrong) we are looking at the 'protection' ship which incorporates a ski ramp. (see the picture at the start of the tread).

On this version the fore part ofthe ship looks more like an Invincible class.

 

[alexsa]

(see the picture at the start of the tread).

On this version the fore part ofthe ship looks more like an Invincible class.

I just dawned on me the picture I was referring was not included at the beinning of this thread as I claimed, sorry about that. It can be found on the Navantia web site at:

http://www.navantia.es/ficheros/ocd/productos/LL_Planos_planta_alzado_01_G.jpg

As noted above this version called the 'strategic protection ship' or Buque de proyeccion Estrategia (if you want it in spanish) retains the LHD capability but is built to operate VSTOL aircraft.

 

[alexsa]

I did have the comment below in as an edit to the the previous post but I wanted to see if a could promt a response in respect of this rumour, hence the new post.

Some sources ahve stated that the ship offered to the RAN will be the 'strategic protection ship' without the ski ramp. This would seem to be a short sighted approach if true, even if the vesel is only intended to operate helos, as the cost of retrofitting a ramp later is much greater than doing it in the beginning and provides usfeul interoperability with our allies. Call if future proofing (a nice RN term for covering all bases).

Does anybody have any information on whether this is true or not?

 

[knightrider4]

From what I understand the Spanish design is prefered because of the fact that it doesn't have to be modified to operate fixed wing assets.