Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[StingrayOZ]

Exploring the concept a new build "Jumbo JC1" design.The concept is to have a ship with JC1 levels of amphibious capability particularly when operating with another JC1 or ship with significant amphibious capability (Choules) in favorable conditions. The amphibious capability is designed to be complimentary on large missions. When operating in amphibious mode, a small compliment of fixed wing aircraft can also be operated.

When not operating with amphibious capability, she would have significant carrier capability. With a goal of operating up to 24 f-35b or large UAV and 6-8 helicopters for sustained periods.

-25 m longer Increasing flight deck (7 spots, 5 for chinook, 2 MV-22), hanger and heavy vehicle decks. Additional crew area for flight crew.
-Aviation lifts to reach down to the heavy vehicle deck. Same size, but are able to reach lower deck as additional hanger storage. Space this takes up would be more than covered by the additional 25m extension in the hanger and heavy deck.
-Removal of dock and associated equipment. Replaced with JHSV style ramp x 2 at the rear (and or side). Able to transfer vehicles (up to M1 tank) onto LCM's, JHSV, mexeflote, directly launching amphibious vehicles etc in moderate sea states (4?). Perhaps augmented with a crane for rougher sea states. However, in an augmented amphibious mode, this ship would have a primary focus on aviation and not water/dock operations.
-An additional LM2500 - Meeting need for sustained maximum speed of approximately 25kt+. (not sure on this, does the RAN need a "fast" carrier perhaps a more efficient change would be from LM2500 to a larger GT)
-An additional 400t of Jp5 storage
-Larger weapon storage. ~50% larger ~700m2.
-Rear flight deck extended creating additional 2 "ready to go" spots for fixed wing aircraft. Additional benefit is full flight deck length is now available (255m). Enabling aircraft to operate at maximum strike loads even in hot/tropical environments. Because of length increase, a flight deck length greater than the JC1 is possible even with the aft lift on the lower deck. Permitting aircraft operations while loading aircraft onto the after lift.
-In pure amphibious mode, displacement is some ~33,000t.
Given that Australia and Spain both operate the JC1, and both countries could possibly operate a carrier in the future, it would be a joint development design with both countries building examples.

While fairly significant changes to the JC1 design (akin of Super Hornet to Hornet) the idea of an affordable carrier (to purchase and operate) based of an existing proven design makes it more palatable. While not "pure carriers", they offer significant amphibious capability and significant carrier capability and are able to perform both roles at the same time within limitations. Complimenting capability offered by JC1, bay/galicia class ships. Akin to through deck cruisers and helicopter destroyers, these would be amphibious ships and carriers sharing elements of both, a true hybrid and a extension of the JC1 concept.

 

[Volkodav]

It wasn't a seminal document and said as much in the paper. I also believe the paper was written with a pre-supposed "don't buy" POV.
I have previously supported the concept of flexibility that F35B's would give to Australian Strategic endeavours and I still believe that some time in the future some should be purchased for use on the LHD's in various scenarios and when not used they will provide additional flexibility to the RAAF.

The authors resort to the same tired argument about range/payload cf other two versions but ignore the reality of a mobile operating platform.
Their cost analysis uses 2012 data (105 USD/unit). I can only assume that this has changed downwards and will continue to do so if Aust. makes future purchases at say 10yrs +.
They also argue that the LHD will need escort protection but make it sound as if this is an added cost which would not occur in an amphibian role.
They cite certain examples that there would be no tactical or strategic benefit in an Australian LHD F35B capability and I agree with these examples. However there could be other occasions such as renewed confrontation with Indonesia over West Papua/PNG border incursions where modern aircraft may oppose a task force and the US stays right away or the Australian government may wish to indulge in some good old gunboat diplomacy to create a positive outcome (speak softly and carry a big stick). A strategic analysis would cover a much larger range of possibilities.

Having stated the above, I do agree with the conclusion that before any decision is made one way or the other, a proper strategic study, which includes a cost benefit analysis, has to be made.

I love how papers like these pretty much always ignore the fact that fighters add a highly effective outer defence zone, extend offensive reach of a task force while considerably improving its overall defensive capability, not to mention the blindingly obvious that sea based air power is mobile and can get closer to the action than any established base.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I love how papers like these pretty much always ignore the fact that fighters add a highly effective outer defence zone, extend offensive reach of a task force while considerably improving its overall defensive capability, not to mention the blindingly obvious that sea based air power is mobile and can get closer to the action than any established base.

• The paper estimates $500 million to modify each LHD and continues the claim that the deck surfacing is an insurmountable problem. It specifically mentions " They don’t have the air traffic control, specialised maintenance facilities or storage for fuel and weaponry needed for STOVL operations", which varies from not exactly true to misleading. They (JC1 class) have Jp5 storage, they have air traffic control, they have weapon storage and lifts.
• This short sightedness that a single LHD would have to perform high level amphibious operations and major carrier functions at the same time all by itself. As far as I can tell no one is suggesting that. Yes, it impossible to do that, but there is a bigger discussion than that, focusing on an individual platform from an individual nation. You might as well claim the LHD are impossible to use as amphibious ships because they can deliver a full ARG from a single ship.
• It briefly mentions the purchase of another LHD. But doesn't go into how that same ship would allow the ADF to deliver on its original and widely stated goal of ARG capability. It perpetuates the idea that a 3rd LHD would only be required purely for carrier function and would provide no other benefit to the army, the ADF, the region etc. It doesn't go into the fact that with only 2 LHD's, there is already limited capability to train the army on amphibious operations, to deploy one regularly to the region on non combat missions. To deploy globally to assist with global operations with out again significantly disrupting emerging amphibious capability.
• That every time we intend to use it as a carrier, we would have to conduct amphibious operations concurrently. Historically that hasn't been the case. It ignores examples of carrier airpower to enforce no flight zones, land strike, sea control, utilizing aircraft as observation platforms for missions other than high intensity conflict. Historically often multiple countries work together, even the extremely capable US has historically focused on one mission, while other nations have focused on another (Libya).
• It then hammers the F-35 program as risky, expensive and less capable. While it trys to focus on the F-35B, all the arguments are exactly the same one used against the entire F-35 program. Shorter range, operating and purchase cost, weapon load, external carriage. Ignoring the advantages of carrier based aircraft in terms of range, sorties, availability in theater etc.
• It claims that there is no need for a carrier in South East Asia. Completely ignoring instances where carriers were used, or would have been extremely useful. WWII, Korea (which is effectively on going), Vietnam, Malaysian emergency, East Timor. The fact that the US has changed its carrier focus to SEA from elsewhere, this is the argument that there is no need for carriers anywhere as we are all lovely peaceful people.
• Claims that a carrier would not be able to assist the US in any way. Completely forgetting that for 4 months of the year there is no carrier in asia/pacific region. Or the contribution the UK, France, Spain and Italy have made to joint missions globally.
• I find the costing of $12 billion highly suspect and unrealistic for Australia. Perhaps that was an estimate involving 2 QE or Nimitz, with 48 aircraft?

For basic capability say a Spanish built Canberra/JC1 (<$1 billion), Additional ~$760 million for the next F-35 order to be B's over A's (28 aircraft). The Uk estimated F-35B would be ~ 30% more expensive to run than the other variants. Overall this would result in an ~8% cost increase in operating budget of the F-35 fleet. The cost of the additional LHD could be met through Project JP 2048 Phase 5, money saved on Choules etc, so unbudgeted expense would be significant but achievable. Of the order of the additional C17 order.

Of course Australia would have significant capabilities. We would have very significant amphibious capability, effectively doubling our deploy-able capability and would be able to form and train up ARG level. We can then deploy 1 LHD on humanitarian missions essentially constantly. We would have the capability to operate up to 24 of the most advanced aircraft anywhere in the region..

Yes, perhaps that money might be better spent else where. But if its capability we need, let spend that money and get that capability now.

 

[alexsa]

Exploring the concept a new build "Jumbo JC1" design.The concept is to have a ship with JC1 levels of amphibious capability particularly when operating with another JC1 or ship with significant amphibious capability (Choules) in favorable conditions. The amphibious capability is designed to be complimentary on large missions. When operating in amphibious mode, a small compliment of fixed wing aircraft can also be operated.

When not operating with amphibious capability, she would have significant carrier capability. With a goal of operating up to 24 f-35b or large UAV and 6-8 helicopters for sustained periods.

-25 m longer Increasing flight deck (7 spots, 5 for chinook, 2 MV-22), hanger and heavy vehicle decks. Additional crew area for flight crew.
-Aviation lifts to reach down to the heavy vehicle deck. Same size, but are able to reach lower deck as additional hanger storage. Space this takes up would be more than covered by the additional 25m extension in the hanger and heavy deck.
-Removal of dock and associated equipment. Replaced with JHSV style ramp x 2 at the rear (and or side). Able to transfer vehicles (up to M1 tank) onto LCM's, JHSV, mexeflote, directly launching amphibious vehicles etc in moderate sea states (4?). Perhaps augmented with a crane for rougher sea states. However, in an augmented amphibious mode, this ship would have a primary focus on aviation and not water/dock operations.
-An additional LM2500 - Meeting need for sustained maximum speed of approximately 25kt+. (not sure on this, does the RAN need a "fast" carrier perhaps a more efficient change would be from LM2500 to a larger GT)
-An additional 400t of Jp5 storage
-Larger weapon storage. ~50% larger ~700m2.
-Rear flight deck extended creating additional 2 "ready to go" spots for fixed wing aircraft. Additional benefit is full flight deck length is now available (255m). Enabling aircraft to operate at maximum strike loads even in hot/tropical environments. Because of length increase, a flight deck length greater than the JC1 is possible even with the aft lift on the lower deck. Permitting aircraft operations while loading aircraft onto the after lift.
-In pure amphibious mode, displacement is some ~33,000t.
Given that Australia and Spain both operate the JC1, and both countries could possibly operate a carrier in the future, it would be a joint development design with both countries building examples.

While fairly significant changes to the JC1 design (akin of Super Hornet to Hornet) the idea of an affordable carrier (to purchase and operate) based of an existing proven design makes it more palatable. While not "pure carriers", they offer significant amphibious capability and significant carrier capability and are able to perform both roles at the same time within limitations. Complimenting capability offered by JC1, bay/galicia class ships. Akin to through deck cruisers and helicopter destroyers, these would be amphibious ships and carriers sharing elements of both, a true hybrid and a extension of the JC1 concept.

Essentailly this would be a significantly new design from a structural level given the significant increase in length noting the implication on strength. So that will cost and will come with risk.

Not sure about ramps noting the dock provides better capability ot laod landing craft quickly, the ramps will be weather dependent and you can only load two instead of four landing craft provided for in the LHD. You may also fine you won't save much wieght either and the opening is below the freeboard deck and the heavy water tight doors will need to be retained and the structure to provide for openings across the stern will still be required.

If you want a ship like this the next interation of the America class would be mofre suitable instead of mucking around with a new design. However, that has crewing implications. All semantics in any case.

 

[Volkodav]

An America with the various crew saving options developed for the USN would be very interesting and I must admit as I read the description of the stretched JCI, like Alex, the America is what came to mind. It already has the size, volume and magazine space required, as well as being designed as a warship with a comprehensive self defence capability and superior damage control.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Essentailly this would be a significantly new design from a structural level given the significant increase in length noting the implication on strength. So that will cost and will come with risk.

Not sure about ramps noting the dock provides better capability ot laod landing craft quickly, the ramps will be weather dependent and you can only load two instead of four landing craft provided for in the LHD. You may also fine you won't save much wieght either and the opening is below the freeboard deck and the heavy water tight doors will need to be retained and the structure to provide for openings across the stern will still be required.

If you want a ship like this the next interation of the America class would be mofre suitable instead of mucking around with a new design. However, that has crewing implications. All semantics in any case.

Looking at what you would have to do and how much you would have to modify, the list gets very long. Moving the lifts and allowing them to reach the lower deck would be key to convert it from an amphib into a "carrier", but then you have significantly increased hanger space, but haven't significantly increased deck area. Your lifts are still limiting. You end up with an unbalanced ship in the sense your hanger space, deck area etc aren't sized right for each other.

Looking at follow-on from the America class. Its the whole thing done right. You have enhanced aviation facilities, but you still have a well dock. Everything has been sized to be efficient. The new propulsion reduces operating costs significantly as well. Its a much more capable and elegant solution. They have gone through many revisions so the design is polished, with many optimizations.

But as you say, never going to happen.

 

[Volkodav]

Both the Tarawa class LHA and a modified LHA were offered in response to the tender to replace Melbourne, either would have been very interesting. The modified LHA was to have had double the airgroup of the baseline LHA (and the other designs on offer) but apart from that I know nothing about the design.

I also remember at the time of the first Fiji coup the then Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Hudson pushed strongly for some sort of aviation ship, I imagine a LPH or Commando Carrier from what I recall, that would also have been able to take the FAAs Sea Kings back to sea. Then there was a project for a new amphibious ship that ended up with the purchase of Bill and Ben, before we finally got the LHDs. It makes me wonder if we would have been off building a pair of Oceans, SCSs or similar, even the tiny VT Harrier Carriers, instead of the final pair of FFGs in the AFP and Bill and Ben. It would have been cheaper, required less manpower and delivered far greater capability than the actually acquired ships

 

[t68]

Both the Tarawa class LHA and a modified LHA were offered in response to the tender to replace Melbourne, either would have been very interesting. The modified LHA was to have had double the airgroup of the baseline LHA (and the other designs on offer) but apart from that I know nothing about the design.

I also remember at the time of the first Fiji coup the then Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Hudson pushed strongly for some sort of aviation ship, I imagine a LPH or Commando Carrier from what I recall, that would also have been able to take the FAAs Sea Kings back to sea. Then there was a project for a new amphibious ship that ended up with the purchase of Bill and Ben, before we finally got the LHDs. It makes me wonder if we would have been off building a pair of Oceans, SCSs or similar, even the tiny VT Harrier Carriers, instead of the final pair of FFGs in the AFP and Bill and Ben. It would have been cheaper, required less manpower and delivered far greater capability than the actually acquired ships

Hindsight makes for a wonderfully thing, only reason we got Bill and Ben in the end was sticker shock always looking for the cheaper options by those who hold the corporate credit card. As we have seen time and time again cheaper is not so in the long run. We need that third LHD irrespective if we get F35B.

Would like to see navantia release the spec's on the PDA replacement carrier (Canberra without well dock) to see how it compares to other designs

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hindsight makes for a wonderfully thing, only reason we got Bill and Ben in the end was sticker shock always looking for the cheaper options by those who hold the corporate credit card. As we have seen time and time again cheaper is not so in the long run. We need that third LHD irrespective if we get F35B.

Would like to see navantia release the spec's on the PDA replacement carrier (Canberra without well dock) to see how it compares to other designs

Well the JC1/Canberra are definitely the right LHD design IMO.

What I see happening is treating them like Bill and Ben and not realizing the full capability offered. They aren't small ships with secondary amphibious roles, with minor/non existent sea basing opportunities. I see them as the delivery platform for a significant portion of aid, guidance, support for countries in our region. While they will be useful for the ADF and the army and navy, they will also be crucial for DFAT (IMO) for MOTW.

From what I can see the best buy would be a standard 3rd LHD. Purely for the amphibious capability and fitting in with what we already have.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Here it is. Or is it here we go. Mainstream media picks up on ASPI's paper.

Doubts raised over converting new ships into aircraft carriers

Flight deck ... the steel expanse of the LHD is not capable of withstanding the heat of a combat jet’s exhaust. Instead, it is designed to operate heavily burdened helicopters carrying troops and equipment. Source: NewsCorp Source: News Corp Australia

It then finishes on the F-35 with the "it can't run, it can't hide it can't fight" slogan.

However coverage of the LHD as amphibious ships seemed positive.

Australia’s new amphibious assault ships are 27,000 tonnes of awesome.

So has the F-35B thing has had collateral affect on perceptions of the LHD's and the F-35?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Here it is. Or is it here we go. Mainstream media picks up on ASPI's paper.

Doubts raised over converting new ships into aircraft carriers



It then finishes on the F-35 with the "it can't run, it can't hide it can't fight" slogan.

However coverage of the LHD as amphibious ships seemed positive.



So has the F-35B thing has had collateral affect on perceptions of the LHD's and the F-35?

there's no tactical benefit in having it.

its a force development and force planning issue

 

[t68]

Here it is. Or is it here we go. Mainstream media picks up on ASPI's paper.

Doubts raised over converting new ships into aircraft carriers



It then finishes on the F-35 with the "it can't run, it can't hide it can't fight" slogan.

However coverage of the LHD as amphibious ships seemed positive.



So has the F-35B thing has had collateral affect on perceptions of the LHD's and the F-35?

Bit of selective nonsense in that article about the deck coating to operate F35, although I do agree that ARH is the 80% solution to our needs at the moment.

Interesting to note they think F35B will be at the expence of the A's all ready on order, B's were always when the SH were to be handed back, they inadvertadly made the case for an ASW carrier for escort troops as they have shown how light they are in self defence in its core role of Amphiboius assault

 

[aussienscale]

That's correct I remember seeing an art concept it looked like the existing design minus the well dock and a couple of decks from memory

Took a few days to find where I had put it, but this is the concept drawing which was put forward as PDA2

 

[t68]

Took a few days to find where I had put it, but this is the concept drawing which was put forward as PDA2

Yep that's it good stuff, wonder of it was picthwd at the RAN as the pennant number is R21

 

[aussienscale]

Yep that's it good stuff, wonder of it was picthwd at the RAN as the pennant number is R21

Doubt it, the picture has never been attached to anything even remotely official, no link to Navantia or any other company, it is more than likely a CGI someone has done up all on their own, but I have no doubt that Navantia have plans drawn up and ready to go for such a ship though

 

[t68]

Doubt it, the picture has never been attached to anything even remotely official, no link to Navantia or any other company, it is more than likely a CGI someone has done up all on their own, but I have no doubt that Navantia have plans drawn up and ready to go for such a ship though

Should have put the smiley on, was down more of tongue in check, but still would like to see the spec on something like that

 

[StingrayOZ]

Its an interesting picture. You can clearly see its been lengthened and had the rear molested.

There are of course many "photoshoped JC1" carriers
http://fotos.subefotos.com/2a3ec12f64dc6b70cf1682342d3092b0o.jpg

Im now of the opinion any modification should be limited to a plug (20-40m) in length. Within that plug you might want a lift that moves internally from the hanger to the lower deck.

That being said, for Australia, I personally think just stock standard 3rd LHD would be the ideal item. As it would be the cheapest and least contentious acquisition, that could follow from existing build procedures.

 

[kev 99]

Took a few days to find where I had put it, but this is the concept drawing which was put forward as PDA2

Now where have I seen those F35 images before?

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfimagesbig/cvf-thales-aug05.jpg

 

[SouthernSky]

there's no tactical benefit in having it.

its a force development and force planning issue

A fact lost amongst the hyperbole.

Days at sea exercising the ability to launch and recover mud movers are days lost to the true reason these ships were purchased in the first place.

 

[old faithful]

Regardless if we used Canberra, s as claytons carriers or not, wouldn't there be some merit in aquiring some F35B, s anyway?
The flexibility of using, just about any road surface as a potential airstrip would give the RAAF flexibility in our region, and basing the aircraft closer to the AO would take pressure from the refuelers to some degree, and if, in the future a purpose built carrier was aquired, the air element is already in the system. Just a thought if numbers were pushed up to 96 to 100.
Mabe considered a waste of time, just thinking there could be some merit in having the B, s in the orbat.