Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

Status
Not open for further replies.

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Regular LHD visits to FIJI will be on the cards I guess to help Fiji and other Pacific Island Nations resist 'unwanted' Chinese influence. Time will tell I guess.

LHD Adelaide tailed by Chinese spooks, IPE18

 

Volkodav

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
From this description I envisage you are designing a faster, better armed version of the Chakri Narubet. Fitted with uprated propulsion and the sensors and CMS of the future frigates but with Mk 57 VLS along the starboard edge of the flight deck. Unsure how many cells you would have with this layout, but any reduction in numbers will be compensated for by the air wing.
Yes, but I am not wedded to any particular design or concept.

Initial thoughts would be something like Garibaldi but with a pair of 16 cell VLS in place of the Aspide slant launchers fore and aft the island with guns and smaller VLS distributed adjacent to but below the flight deck port and starboard, Mk57 down the starboard side works too. A small but not too small ship able to keep up with our skimmers, but not as big as the JMSDF DDHs.

If there was money and crew for three modified QEs, Americas, or Cavours, fantastic, as larger hulls are more flexible and capable as well as deliver better value for money, assuming you have the money to acquire and support them without distorting other capabilities too badly. As for the LHDs, even a stretched one, I don't believe people realise just how tight their aviation facilities are, it is for instance a real struggle to fit the required army aviation elements onboard a these were never configured for deployment at sea, purpose design vessel would still be tight but in not having to fit the equivalent of a reinforced Infantry Battlegroup onboard as well would have more space for aviation.

The concept I'm thinking about have been around for decades, the later RN Escort Cruiser concepts for instance. They started out looking similar to the French Jeanne d'Arc with a Sea Slug forward then evolved to through deck designs with Sea Slug aft and a twin Mk6 4.5" turret on a deckhouse forward of the island, one with Mk13 Tartar forward or the island on the flight deck and various configurations with Seadart. The different designs had from six and up to a dozen large ASW helos (initially Wessex, then Sea King but even a proposed ASW Chinook) or later Harriers. These ships were very much seen as replacements for the RNs war built cruiser fleet and not as carriers, they were desired for their command an control facilities as much or more than their aircraft.

When the RN was to trim down from their five strike carrier (nominal) fleet to a three carrier one the Escort Cruisers were vital, as there were to be five of them replacing two of the strike carriers in proposed surface / ASW groups in the Atlantic, while the CVA01s would be a global / east of Suez force. When Australia went to the UK looking for a steam powered, Tartar armed, helicopter equipped County class destroy derivative, the RN pointed out that three escort cruisers would be ideal for the RAN instead.
 

MickB

Active Member
I chose the Chakri Narubet mainly because it seemed to be the only in service design of the aprox size and capability of your description.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I chose the Chakri Narubet mainly because it seemed to be the only in service design of the aprox size and capability of your description.
Too Small for F35B tho,

I do like the idea of a stretched Canberra. I believe the Spanish had designed a new aircraft carrier based on JC1 but with a deck or two removed.
But my main concern for a LHD masquerading as a CVS is speed, even the JPN Hyuga as an ASW carrier is capable of 30 plus knots, Canberra's are what 21/22 knots?
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The reasoning behind Australia acquiring the Canberra and Adelaide dates all the way back to the Timor crisis and the difficulties experienced during that campaign. The focus back then was improving Australia's amphibious sealift capability in support of operations in our immediate region.

A lot has changed since then and, while regional issues are still important, I would suggest that the focus is now moving to more distant threats. Threats such as China's growing ambitions in the South China Sea and the continuing war on terrorism.

Had the decision to build two large LHDs been delayed by a couple of years we might well have decided to buy aircraft carriers instead. As things stand I think the only way we will get a proper aircraft carrier is another boost in defence spending ... which is possible.

Failing that it might be worth considering the purchase of some F-35Bs and look at deploying at least a few of them on board the LHDs. It may well reduce the capability of these ships as pure amphibs but in this day and age flexibility might be more important.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Too Small for F35B tho,

I do like the idea of a stretched Canberra. I believe the Spanish had designed a new aircraft carrier based on JC1 but with a deck or two removed.
But my main concern for a LHD masquerading as a CVS is speed, even the JPN Hyuga as an ASW carrier is capable of 30 plus knots, Canberra's are what 21/22 knots?
Your concern 'ship speed' is perhaps more relevant to a small conventional aircraft carrier with perhaps a steam catapult. CVF is noted to be 25 knots + (generally 25) and with the ski jump at an unknown WOD Wind Over the Deck an F-35B can launch at maximum all up weight of around 27 tonnes from around 800 feet. It is always nice to be able to increase those variables for a 'UK Hot Day' (35.5C, 992Mb Persian Gulf area) but they are a good guide.

Perhaps a little known factoid about our A4Gs catapulting from HMAS Melbourne was the maximum take off weight 24,500 pounds could be used on the approx. 100 foot catapult stroke in nil wind in South China Sea summer heat but the pilot would have to be willing to endure the maximum 9G that the Skyhawks were built for in direction of catapult travel. OUCH! This was called the 'warshot' and never used on the aircraft because not needed. Usually the average oomph produced a 5 to 6G punch in the chest for just under two seconds but the initial kick was the most - gradually decreasing in that time frame....

The ski jump helps a great deal to enable more weight for a given deck length whilst more WOD is always useful in a similar way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t68

t68

Well-Known Member
Well with Hyuga doing 30+ and no fixed wing ops was under the impression speed was a vital component of ASW for sprint to better prosecute the target. But I keep forgetting the Hyuga has a hull mounted sonor which explains the need for speed at times.
 

ASSAIL

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Too Small for F35B tho,

I do like the idea of a stretched Canberra. I believe the Spanish had designed a new aircraft carrier based on JC1 but with a deck or two removed.
But my main concern for a LHD masquerading as a CVS is speed, even the JPN Hyuga as an ASW carrier is capable of 30 plus knots, Canberra's are what 21/22 knots?
HMAS Melbourne could just make 24 kts on a good day downhill so what's the problem with 22Kts?
The only time Melbourne tried to go max speed was launching aircraft in the tropics on hot days, the rest of her life was chugging around somewhere between 15-18 and in any case F35B doesn't need that launch speed, nor do ASW helos

A CVS Group needs a protective screen and if that screen is to be effective they need to be proceeding at less than cavitation inception speed, they also need to be screening at a few knots faster than the protected high value unit which necessarily reduces the formation speed considerably.
The problem is completely different for a CBG where surface screen units need to keep up with the carrier during flight ops and as this hinders their effectiveness as an ASW escort, the need for screening helos and Nucs becomes very obvious.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
There is a KPP Key Performance Parameter for launching from a flat deck (and one for CVFs) which must be met. Currently it is 600 feet (up from 550 in round numbers and don't know what the earlier 450 for CVF with Ski Jump change has become - pilots often say 300 feet but one would assume that if full fuel no weapons) for a full internal weapon/fuel load to achieve a combat radius of 450 NM and return with sufficient fuel for a max weight vertical recovery plus holding fuel. WOD is 10 knots in tropical heat 92 deg F IIRC (less than UK hot day). 2018 SAR Selected Acquisition Report for the F-35 has all these KPP details: https://fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR-2018.pdf (0.65Mb).

US Mil Spec Hot day was 32.1C (90F), 1013Mb & UK Hot Day were actually 35.5C (95.9F), 992Mb
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think the current LHD has bettered 22kts in trials. Some added length is likely to assist that. Plus another 10+m of launch deck is going to be welcomed by everyone. At around 245-250m it is still within reason.

More space for generation is likely to be helpful, with that kind of size, you could use bigger GT like a pair of MT30's, or extra Lm2500+'s. I would actually go with extra diesels, but if you want a couple of extra knots or sustained max, then it shouldn't be a problem. But ~20kt is likely to be the sweet spot.

The combined amphibious + F-35 would only be in cases where one of the other LHD's are unavailable. As it isn't replacing a LHD, it is replacing Choules. With three ships deployed you have a lot more space than with just two LHD's and Choules.

It would be a hell of a lot easier to sell the concept based off existing logistics, training, development and operations of the LHD's, and having an amphibious capacity would make a very sensible partnering of roles. It would also make it easier to package some of the capability back onto a LHD if the big ship was out of service, or if you only wanted a smaller level of capability. It also solves a lot of our amphibious raising capability and sustainment issues.

Then you have the ASW value. Fit it with a nice big sonar. I also had some ideas about turning a LCat type ship into a high speed ASW platform and lilly pad for ASW operations.

It really would just be the acquisition cost. Offset by selling Choules. Your half way there. Save on modifying the existing LHD's.

It is the only viable concept I can see getting up.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I think the current LHD has bettered 22kts in trials. Some added length is likely to assist that. Plus another 10+m of launch deck is going to be welcomed by everyone. At around 245-250m it is still within reason.

More space for generation is likely to be helpful, with that kind of size, you could use bigger GT like a pair of MT30's, or extra Lm2500+'s. I would actually go with extra diesels, but if you want a couple of extra knots or sustained max, then it shouldn't be a problem. But ~20kt is likely to be the sweet spot.

The combined amphibious + F-35 would only be in cases where one of the other LHD's are unavailable. As it isn't replacing a LHD, it is replacing Choules. With three ships deployed you have a lot more space than with just two LHD's and Choules.

It would be a hell of a lot easier to sell the concept based off existing logistics, training, development and operations of the LHD's, and having an amphibious capacity would make a very sensible partnering of roles. It would also make it easier to package some of the capability back onto a LHD if the big ship was out of service, or if you only wanted a smaller level of capability. It also solves a lot of our amphibious raising capability and sustainment issues.

Then you have the ASW value. Fit it with a nice big sonar. I also had some ideas about turning a LCat type ship into a high speed ASW platform and lilly pad for ASW operations.

It really would just be the acquisition cost. Offset by selling Choules. Your half way there. Save on modifying the existing LHD's.

It is the only viable concept I can see getting up.
Australia also has a requirement for either a third replenishment or additional logistics vessel sometime in the late 2020s. Perhaps if the replacement of the Choules was combined with this requirement then funding could be found for a third Canberra class.
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Australia also has a requirement for either a third replenishment or additional logistics vessel sometime in the late 2020s. Perhaps if the replacement of the Choules was combined with this requirement then funding could be found for a third Canberra class.
That would seem to match up with general timelines. Although it doesn't have to merge capabilities, acquisitions may be made that facilitate everything we want within budget. Logistics vessel covers a wide range of options.

Choules could then be pensioned off to an ally (crewed at a much lower rate ~60)
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Tell me "I'm Dreamin'" - will this AEGIS upgrade/update enable F-35s to help target/fire Standard Missiles from ships at targets the ship cannot see? Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs for Fleet Defence only as required. :) OR heaven forfend enable forrin F-35s to fire same same missiles.

Australia cleared to buy $185 million in Aegis equipment 27 Jun 2018
"...“This sale enhances Australia’s self-defense capability, while significantly improving interoperability with U.S. Navy AEGIS combatants in the region,” the notification reads. “By deploying a surface combatant fleet that will incorporate Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), Australia will significantly improve network-centric warfare capability for U.S. forces operating in the region.”..." Australia cleared to buy $185 million in Aegis equipment
 

oldsig127

Well-Known Member
Tell me "I'm Dreamin'" - will this AEGIS upgrade/update enable F-35s to help target/fire Standard Missiles from ships at targets the ship cannot see? Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs for Fleet Defence only as required. :) OR heaven forfend enable forrin F-35s to fire same same missiles.

Australia cleared to buy $185 million in Aegis equipment 27 Jun 2018
Yes, no and yes. As I understand it Australia is the only other country getting CEC to date. And the "no" is because there aren't any Australian F-35Bs nor intention to get them.

oldsig
 

Volkodav

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Tell me "I'm Dreamin'" - will this AEGIS upgrade/update enable F-35s to help target/fire Standard Missiles from ships at targets the ship cannot see? Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs for Fleet Defence only as required. :) OR heaven forfend enable forrin F-35s to fire same same missiles.

Australia cleared to buy $185 million in Aegis equipment 27 Jun 2018
Yep!
 

Volkodav

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Yes this has been on the cards for a while with the F-35 (A, B, or C) able to serve as a sensor node for extended range engagement by allied assets. The SM-6 Hawkeye/Wedgetail and now F-35 combo will be a game changer. Just imagine a LO HALE UAV with appropriate sensors and CEC.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
This particular sale approval doesn't actually initiate the capability - the DDGs already have CEC and it was demonstrated in trials between Hobart and Brisbane in April. Looks more like an outfit of kit to enable SAAB to develop an ATI integrating the CEA radars.
 

oldsig127

Well-Known Member
This particular sale approval doesn't actually initiate the capability - the DDGs already have CEC and it was demonstrated in trials between Hobart and Brisbane in April. Looks more like an outfit of kit to enable SAAB to develop an ATI integrating the CEA radars.
Yes, the text actually says that and also by implication that the Hobarts already have it - it will include upgrades to the existing capacity on the three Hobarts, plus of course training facilities, software licences and so forth

oldsig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top