Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[hauritz]

This was discussed and length and I believe it was confirmed that below the superstructure they are the same. JC1 was never intended to be a dedicated CV but were could provide some support. As such they do not equipped for sustained fast jet operations in both fuel storage and weapons stowage. However, as indicated by the operation of JC1, they could support a small number of VSTOL aircraft. The ships will require work in coatings and supporting systems.

This will reduce the Amphib capacity as they would chew up some of the garage deck space. For both aircraft and equipment. Still it seems that there is an opportunity to embarked aircraft needed for a particular mission ...... if we ever buy the F-35B.

I wouldn't be surprised if Australia ended up with a small number of F-35B ... perhaps as a part replacement for the super hornets. Abbot kicked the idea of F-35Bs around and with the Chinese likely to be fielding 3 or 4 carriers by 2030 that idea might be revisited.

 

[vonnoobie]

I wouldn't be surprised if Australia ended up with a small number of F-35B ... perhaps as a part replacement for the super hornets. Abbot kicked the idea of F-35Bs around and with the Chinese likely to be fielding 3 or 4 carriers by 2030 that idea might be revisited.

That has been debated to death and with the cost factors along with such a move reducing the intended role of the ships if it ever does occur it is more likely with a new build ship dedicated to such a role and that is HIGHLY unlikely.

Australia isnt trying to go toe to toe with China but rather handle small to medium operations independantly (some what) and for larger operations to fit within a combined allied force of which France, UK or the US would be providing such carrier support if needed. Australia having 8 or so F-35B's wont mean squat in the field but those aircraft will take awway a lot of finds and space aboard those ships for assets that could be of use.

 

[SpazSinbad]

No need to be pedantic, exaggerating the effect of a small number of Oz F-35Bs - when required - on our LHDs for Fleet Defence. Seems to me to be prudent whilst also giving our F-35B allies in the region a spare deck for emergencies even when our own small number of F-35Bs are not onboard. Who says we need to go 'toe to toe with China'? Please do not exaggerate.

Our assets are not useful if they cannot go protected elsewhere. Sure we can wait for the uncontested environment then the LHDs are just giant floating trucks. Not a bad thing because an LHD sunk unprotected is not something we like to ponder in our neck o' the woods. And I suggest as always that the RAAF need to incorporate using a small number of F-35Bs in their conops - protecting the ARMY ashore. I'm sure the ARMY would like that - no?

 

[Milne Bay]

No need to be pedantic, exaggerating the effect of a small number of Oz F-35Bs - when required - on our LHDs for Fleet Defence. Seems to me to be prudent whilst also giving our F-35B allies in the region a spare deck for emergencies even when our own small number of F-35Bs are not onboard. Who says we need to go 'toe to toe with China'? Please do not exaggerate.

Our assets are not useful if they cannot go protected elsewhere. Sure we can wait for the uncontested environment then the LHDs are just giant floating trucks. Not a bad thing because an LHD sunk unprotected is not something we like to ponder in our neck o' the woods. And I suggest as always that the RAAF need to incorporate using a small number of F-35Bs in their conops - protecting the ARMY ashore. I'm sure the ARMY would like that - no?

Hmmm, not so sure about that.
For the operational use of F-35B's ashore would there not need to be a complete re-write of RAAF operational doctrine including logistical support, spares, fuel, armaments, maintenance personnel, protection for such and mobility of such as operations move forward - or back etc etc. Army ashore would have to be provided with air-cover in any case or they would not be ashore in the first place, so we can assume that air-cover is a given. As for ground attack support, is that not partly filled by ARH in supplementing the existing air cover.
No, I can't see it working in practice.
MB

 

[SpazSinbad]

I'm not so sure the RAAF is so unimaginative. Reluctant they may be to operate F-35Bs ashore. Your rewrite is totally bogus except for ConOps with ARMY and they do that now as you suggest with the F-35A however some F-35Bs can be mobile based ashore up north as per USMC doctrine DSO Distributed STOVL Ops which does NOT have to include the LHDs if that is too onerous. However for Fleet Defence it is already clear to me at least if not to you how useful the F-35B based on an LHD will be in the network environment. You throw in helos I see. Good luck with that.

 

[t68]

Agree we need a dedicated ASW carrier that doesn't take away the operational aspects of the LHD, irrespective if that platform is another LHD or Cavour CVS one cannot look away from the UK experience in 82 with only 28 harriers. It's how you use that matters

 

[SpazSinbad]

I count 10 RAF Harriers as well as 28 SHARS in initial Falklands conflict. British air services in the Falklands War - Wikipedia As I'm not advocating operating as some kind of CAS from our LHDs - just FLEET DEFENCE as some of the SHARs were used then perhaps your comment is relevant. The RAF GR.3s went ashore ASAP to operate from FOBs. A different fish kettle. I'm suggesting our RAAF F-35Bs disembark ASAP once objective reached via their FLEET Defence to minimize their impact on the LHD and I'm talking only a small number. Otherwise the RAAF operate as per instruction with these F-35Bs pitching in as seen fit. The other F-35Bs can transit there in the same way the RAAF F-35As would get there. For Fleet Defence the ISR networking ability of the F-35B will be most useful and more so if the NIFC-CA USN concept is realized somewhat. Early days I'm sure.

 

[vonnoobie]

No need to be pedantic, exaggerating the effect of a small number of Oz F-35Bs - when required - on our LHDs for Fleet Defence. Seems to me to be prudent whilst also giving our F-35B allies in the region a spare deck for emergencies even when our own small number of F-35Bs are not onboard. Who says we need to go 'toe to toe with China'? Please do not exaggerate.

Our assets are not useful if they cannot go protected elsewhere. Sure we can wait for the uncontested environment then the LHDs are just giant floating trucks. Not a bad thing because an LHD sunk unprotected is not something we like to ponder in our neck o' the woods. And I suggest as always that the RAAF need to incorporate using a small number of F-35Bs in their conops - protecting the ARMY ashore. I'm sure the ARMY would like that - no?

F-35B's being used on the LHD's only when required then runs into the issue of them not being aboard enough to have a decent amount of training thus reducing there overall effectiveness. So that is billions spent for a capability that would be occasionally deployed and have marginal effectiveness.

Us not having our LHD's set up for F-35B's doesnt mean allied F-35B's couldnt use our LHD's in an emergency landing. Hell a Harrier landed on a cargo ship.

If not going toe to toe with China then who would these F-35B's be used against. Only reason Australia would need them is if we were doing an independent operation in which case the size and type of operations the ADF and Federal Government has in mind wouldnt require them.

F-35B's would be the least effective defensive asset that could be deployed. As has been stated in the past the LHD's when deployed especially to a hot zone will have an armed escort. Said armed escort (be it Hobart class or future SEA5000 frigate) would have a much quicker response time then trying to fuel, arm and launch even one F-35B off of the LHD. It would also have longer ranged weapons and be able to deploy a lot more of them then a small force of F-35B's.

The RAAF already does a bloody great job with its current assets. All that adding F-35B's to there mix would doe is add more cost for a less efficient aircraft.

On the cost benefit analysis the F-35B for Australia just doesn't stack up. Those that we would need them against we wouldnt be fighting without the US by our side and spending billions to be able to get a squadrons worth aboard the ships of which only a portion could be in the air at any one time would be fiscally insane compared to say spending those billions on other assets or capabilities that would give more bang for buck or that our allies lack.

 

[SpazSinbad]

"F-35B's being used on the LHD's only when required then runs into the issue of them not being aboard enough to have a decent amount of training thus reducing there overall effectiveness. So that is billions spent for a capability that would be occasionally deployed and have marginal effectiveness...." Amazing that these F-35Bs cannot train with our LHDs where possible/required. OMG they MAY NEVER BE USED IN REAL COMBAT as per a lot of ADF assets. However these F-35Bs may well DETER real combat via their FLEET DEFENCE effectiveness. Seems to me to be money well spent to make our LHDs more than just floating trucks.

I agree an allied F-35B emergency landing is possible but not desired for reasons already given. Funny you should mention the 'cargo ship' do you mean a prepared ATLANTIC CONVEYOR or you refer to a 'bad' VL on that tiny cargo ship on top of a container and other stuff? Why would not FLEET DEFENCE F-35Bs be airborne? One only required airborne for the networking COP Common Operating Picture. Have you heard of F-35s possibly firing weapons from other assets? "The RAAF already does a bloody great job with its current assets." HubbaHubba. I'll leave your last paragraph to Davy Jones Locker.

 

[Stampede]

That has been debated to death and with the cost factors along with such a move reducing the intended role of the ships if it ever does occur it is more likely with a new build ship dedicated to such a role and that is HIGHLY unlikely.

Australia isnt trying to go toe to toe with China but rather handle small to medium operations independantly (some what) and for larger operations to fit within a combined allied force of which France, UK or the US would be providing such carrier support if needed. Australia having 8 or so F-35B's wont mean squat in the field but those aircraft will take awway a lot of finds and space aboard those ships for assets that could be of use.

I don't think Australia wants to go toe to toe with anyone least of all our largest trading partner China. But spending money on defence is a gamble of insuring peace with deterrence. Striking the right balance of defence posture and capability with what money is always up for debate. I'd therefore suggest that given our maritime needs are stronger than most countries we need to foster the ability to control our coast, SLOC and have scope to project power further a field.
Australia is acquiring a range large ocean going warships to influence at a distance.They will ideally operate under friendly air cover from land based assets but a quick look at a map will show you that this is not always that practical in this part of the world. A modest number of integrated f35B on the Canberra's is a viable option and money well spent.
I don't buy the inflated costing of converting the Canberra class to operate the F35B nor the opportunity cost arguments.
Yes, the F35B is dearer than the A model, but I just see it as value for money.

It's being said before but lets remember; the Canberra class are flexible ships . they can sail WITH......or .........WITHOUT any number or combination of helicopters,vehicles,tanks LLC's , Containers, personnel and....................................................................................Fixed wing aircraft.

They are a mission dependant platform which currently falls short one of the above options.

So import do I feel the F35B is to our defence that I would have it as apart of our initial Tranche of 72 Aircraft.

Remember we may have to conduct operation without allies,without choice, and within our part of the world.

The scenarios are many and that is why we need a flexible and well balanced defence force.
A defence force with naval fixed wing aircraft


Regards S

 

[DaveS124]

F-35B's would be the least effective defensive asset that could be deployed. As has been stated in the past the LHD's when deployed especially to a hot zone will have an armed escort. Said armed escort (be it Hobart class or future SEA5000 frigate) would have a much quicker response time then trying to fuel, arm and launch even one F-35B off of the LHD. It would also have longer ranged weapons and be able to deploy a lot more of them then a small force of F-35B's.

It's F-35Bs, not F-35B's. No possessive apostrophe needed.

Destroyers and frigates for task group air defence?

Well, the UNCLAS edition of RAN doctrine doesn't sing from quite the same songsheet, Mr V. Also, the admirals also do not share the view that USN LHD with a small number of F-35Bs or a CVN can be just dialled-up as if a pizza. Happily, they are honest in stating that catastrophic loss is possible without TG AD. Hard to rustle up much amphibiosity when the TG has been wrecked.

Apologies for the length of the quote, but it matters.

From pages 85 to 87.

There is, however, no certainty that even with such support that the RAN will always conduct operations as part of a superior force. Consequently, ADF planning must allow for operations in which sea control cannot be guaranteed, or where it remains contested throughout a mission.

The main planning factors in such operations will be the weighing of risk against the importance of achieving the objective. A failure to achieve a sufficient level of sea control, before attempting either to project maritime power ashore or provide protection of sea lines of communication, will almost inevitably expose one’s forces to greater potential losses. For a small maritime force every unit is likely to be high-value, and the loss of any one may be a serious or even a crippling blow.

The risk of loss must be accepted as a part of the cost of conflict......The RAN’s main focus must therefore be on the competence and toughness of our people, so that we can rely on sensors and weapons being used to maximum effect.


The Role of Air Power in Achieving Sea Control

...........The RAN, in particular, must rely on others to provide broad area air, surface and under-sea surveillance as well as any air combat capability for counter air or strike operations.

.........Nevertheless, depending on the circumstances, reliance on foreign military services for the provision of air power may carry some operational risks. For example, if RAN units are integrated with US Navy forces they may well benefit from the embarked air power of a carrier battle group. In the event of working with multinational partners without embarked air power, however, an Australian maritime task group must necessarily rely on land-based air power.

There are several limitations associated with reliance on land-based air power. For operations away from the Australian mainland, ongoing air-to-air refuelling (AAR) or secure forward operating bases relatively close to the area of operations will be needed. Unfortunately the use of AAR to support aircraft beyond their unrefuelled range introduces an additional level of vulnerability while, even with such basing, assured air power will still only be available when the maritime operation enjoys a high priority for the allocation of resources. Without forward basing, the situation becomes even more problematic.

Moreover, the further aircraft have to transit from land bases and the more they will need to rely on AAR, the more they will be limited in the weapons and stores they can carry. This will affect both their time on task and their effectiveness while there. Responsiveness also becomes an issue, and the provision of a combat air patrol for a deployed maritime force is more challenging as the distance from land bases increases. The ability to respond immediately to a demand for air cover could be vital for the success of an operation and can depend on adequate threat warning. Such warning may itself depend on the availability of land-based surveillance aircraft.

A lack of available air power may, in some cases, greatly hinder or entirely compromise deployed operations. Without either surveillance or combat aircraft, or even both, surface forces must depend almost completely on their own resources. This implies a potential loss of warning time against low-flying threats and an associated dependence upon short-range detection and rapid reaction. Although the Hobart-class destroyers will have a reasonable capability to deal with such threats, particularly when networked with remote sensors, there are few of these vessels.

The absence of friendly tactical combat aircraft provides much greater freedom of action for an adversary’s air power. This translates into more thorough and accurate enemy surveillance and ultimately more attack options for an opposing force. Consequently, it also demands changes in the mode of operations for friendly surface forces, perhaps constraining where and how they operate. In extreme situations, surface operations may need to be curtailed.

I look forward to "toughness and competence" stopping a high-Mach ASuW.

Anyway, the F-35B is in the mix for Air 600 2C, so folk will just have to be patient. It may come to pass, and no-one here knows otherwise. No-one.

 

[ASSAIL]

There is always benefit to a TG by having organic AD providing CAP when dictated by circumstance.
We always assume we will be operating with the USN in larger conflicts and that's probably correct but that may not always be the case.
It may be that our interests clash with a regional peer such as Indonesia as it did in ET. We may be operating a FONOP in the SCS with other allies without the US but in both these cases and in any other such instances an organic CAP, especially equipped with NIF-CA is a huge insurance.
Like Spaz, I have seen the difference a CAP made to effective AD when operating independently in the past and it seems almost inevitable that it will happen in the RAN in future, the F35B has all the capability to do this effectively.
The question becomes, what form does this take, a few deployed on an LHD at various times, a dedicated third platform or deployed on a container ship?
The point is that the final 28 aircraft are yet to be determined but the option has not been dismissed.

We have an example from the past, the RNFAA, where interservice rivalry detracted from an effective development of organic fixed wing air and of where senior RN officers kept a closed mind as to how this should be used.
(Actually one of the benefits from this stupidity was that RN. carriers had armour plated flight decks because they were to fight with the battle group and needed protection from plunging large calibre gunfire!)

 

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks for the quote 'DaveS124' I think the PDF is: AUSTRALIAN MARITIME OPERATIONS 2017 pages 85-86

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Australian_Maritime_Operations_2017.pdf

 

[MickB]

With future USMC deployments to Darwin set to include increased numbers of F35Bs, it would be interesting to see if first hand operational experance will have an impact on the composition of the final batch of F35s for the RAAF.

 

[SpazSinbad]

With future USMC deployments to Darwin set to include increased numbers of F35Bs, it would be interesting to see if first hand operational experance will have an impact on the composition of the final batch of F35s for the RAAF.

Do you have an URL for this 'increased numbers of F-35Bs (on an LHA one assumes)" - I have read a while back that an LHA would patrol around up North some time later.

 

[hauritz]

I think that one aspect that seems to be overlooked when talking about the F-35B is that its potential contribution to the fleet is much more than being just another weapons platform. It is one of the most advanced multi-mission platforms ever built ... not just a souped up Harrier or Skyhawk. Even a single F-35 on an ISR mission fully networked with the navy's air warfare destroyers and Frigates would add so much extra capability to the fleet.

 

[t68]

Well we do know that the last 28 could be manned or not, but the marines see something in the MUX program able to take off from the decks of large frigates/destroyers as well as carriers LHD etc

Marines Release Specifications for New Mega-Drone


Marines' Ship-Launched Mega-Drone May Not Carry Weapons After All

 

[alexsa]

I think that one aspect that seems to be overlooked when talking about the F-35B is that its potential contribution to the fleet is much more than being just another weapons platform. It is one of the most advanced multi-mission platforms ever built ... not just a souped up Harrier or Skyhawk. Even a single F-35 on an ISR mission fully networked with the navy's air warfare destroyers and Frigates would add so much extra capability to the fleet.

Absolutely. The example of an F-35B linking to a DDG to hack a SSM target using and SM6 should not be ignored. Basically you are extending the reach of existing system in support of fleet defence. The critical issue here is some nations in the region have very capable shore based and ship based SSMs and we need not be in a global conflict to have to face them ..... they could be used in a localised conflict.

Given the level of instability at the moment the risk of such a conflict is not inconceivable. It would be a pity to find we needed the capabilty in a localised situation with someone willing to fire SSMs at our ships. It would be a bit late to look at this then.

On the issue of efficiency ....... While the F-35B has less range ............. it would have less distance to travel in such situations and a faster turn around. When Melbourne was paid off the arguement was that the RAAF could provide top cover. Even in Australain waters that really only worked when the vessel were in range of an airfield not where you are offshore and the aircraft had a long transits requiring tanking as you absorbed much of the capability in trying to provide top cover. In that case the RAAF claim was hollow.

At the end of the day the it will be a decision that comes out of government ...

 

[ngatimozart]

It's F-35Bs, not F-35B's.
Apologies for the length of the quote, but it matters.

From pages 85 to 87.



I look forward to "toughness and competence" stopping a high-Mach ASuW.

Anyway, the F-35B is in the mix for Air 600 2C, so folk will just have to be patient. It may come to pass, and no-one here knows otherwise. No-one.

When you quote something please provide a link to the source or if not an electronic link, cite the source. This protects you and the fora from accusations of plagiarism etc.

Secondly, please provide a source for your claim: "Anyway, the F-35B is in the mix for Air 600 2C".

 

[Boagrius]

Absolutely. The example of an F-35B linking to a DDG to hack a SSM target using and SM6 should not be ignored. Basically you are extending the reach of existing system in support of fleet defence. The critical issue here is some nations in the region have very capable shore based and ship based SSMs and we need not be in a global conflict to have to face them ..... they could be used in a localised conflict.

To me this is the game-changer. Once upon a time, organic fixed wing air essentially just meant a different means of weapons delivery. Nowadays the F35B seems to be an ISR node in its own right, capable of providing vital OTH sensor data and even missile cueing (SM6) to a given surface task force. Potentially a significant force multiplier I would have thought.