Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

Status
Not open for further replies.

t68

Well-Known Member
@SpazSinbad an interesting reply to that article you posted, via Putting F-35B on the Canberra Class LHDs: The Debate Continues - Steve George


I have been saying something along the same lines for some time about offshore oil dependency, considering how lot of our fuel inports come from Asia
I was merely a junior officer in our RAAF, but here’s the thing. Australia no longer supplies its own oil, thus is totally reliant on imports. Scenario: The cargo on the fully loaded super tanker, on which all of our military effort, air land and sea will rely, is approaching the Australian mainland, transitting via the Timor Sea north of Darwin, and heading for the Pacific Ocean, via Torres Strait, and thence down the eastern seaboard to either Sydney or Melbourne. The tanker is exposed to our northern enemies for a period of three days, assuming best speed. It is accompanied by a small fleet of escort frigates/destroyers. Let us assume our enemies possess the carrier-busting missile the Chinese are rumoured to have. Period of greatest exposure = 72 hours. Now do the math to work out how many fast movers we need to provide a capable Combat Air Patrol overhead the tanker for those 72 hours. Previously mentioned facts are the transit time to/from, loiter time overhead, minimum numbers of fighters with the legs and weapons to be a credible deterrent/shoot down force, before the long range carrier busting missile is launched from a stand off position. Let’s assume a CAP of 4 aircraft, with time on task of 2 hours. Time to get there = 1 hour, time on task = 2 hours, time to get home = 1 hour. So, to provide a CAP even for 24 hours uses up aircraft/crew at a prodigious rate……perhaps 28 aircraft/crews for a 24 hour period. My figures are rubbery but they serve to illustrate the point. Any fool can see that we will need at least 84 aircraft/crews for the task, assuming the usual unserviceabilities and crew unavailability. Australia has how many FA-18’s, assuming the boys in blue will committ them. A seaborne platform equipped with a credible squadron of fast movers is absolutely critical to our war fighting capability over both land and sea. I was merely a Flight Lieutenant (ex fleet air arm) and I am a fool, but I can see the glaringly obvious. Why cannot the senior officers charged with the lives of many not also see this?
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Active Member
Umm... what? As I understand it, the Canberra-class LHD's already have important roles in addition to/aside from 'just' the amphibious one. The vessel's potential as a task force command ship, much like how the Kanimbla-class LPA's were sometimes used, comes to mind immediately. The LHD's could also see use as a sort of 'mothership' supporting and sustaining a force of patrol boats and/or smallcraft to control the green/brown water areas. A similar sort of use could be made, but with embarked naval helicopters to provide improved area situational awareness, and/or a greater ASW screen and sanitization capability.

Not to mention the very real potential for hostilities to break out somewhere in the region, to which Australia responds by deploying troops and kit to neutralize a threat, stabilize an area, or guard/defend against potential hostiles. Consider, for instance, that Australia and/or the US re-invest in Manus Island and building up the infrastructure capabilities of the airfield and port, so that US and ADF personnel and kit could operate or be forward deployed from there. I could easily see the PRC and a number of other states and non-state actors taking an unhealthy interest in the place, depending on the circumstances. Under normal conditions I would not expect a full defending garrison to be maintained, but if hostilities were to break out, then I could see a need for defending troops and their kit. The LHD's and/or the LPD would be well suited to moving the personnel and their kit.
Yes the Canberra Class are a very flexible ship perfect for many contingency's

S.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Really at the end of the day if we wanted to put F35B on the Canberra’s as a secondary capability what really needs to change beside deck coating and perhaps landing navigation radar, do we have to strengthen the flight deck in any way?

The USS America is to receive additional modifications by adding intercostal structural members below landing spots seven and nine, and a new air surveillance radar is being planned.

This Navy Ship Is Getting Deadly New Upgrades for Its F-35s

Dual Band Radar Swapped Out In New Carriers
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
At the time these changes to AMERICA were mooted (subsequently carried out as noted above) the USN BigWigs said the F-35B could operate WITHOUT the intercostal member however the landing spots would have to be interchanged with no sequential landings upon the same spot. This was deemed inconvenient so changes made. How that translates to the LHD under discussion you would have to wait for answers from those in the know (and since forever they are quiet).

New Radars for LHAs are not mentioned so why do different radars on CVNs count? Not applicable. JPALS takes care of a lot of friendly force tracking out hundreds of miles. The quote below from the 'National Interest' or wherever it came from first 'WARRIOR MAVEN' highlights the misunderstanding about what the special spray on non-skid. This surface transmits heat AWAY from itself to the deck which preserves the NON-SKID of which we speak. I SKID THEE NOT! :)
"...Navy engineers installed a new heat-resistant thermally sprayed non-skid, which is designed to prevent long-term heat damage to the flight deck and underlying structure, adding intercostal structural members below landing spots seven and nine,“With the added [intercostal] structure, these two landing spots will provide the capability to perform closely timed cyclic flight operations with the F-35B without overstressing the flight deck,”..." 07 Feb 2018 This Navy Ship Is Getting Deadly New Upgrades for Its F-35s
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Really at the end of the day if we wanted to put F35B on the Canberra’s as a secondary capability what really needs to change beside deck coating and perhaps landing navigation radar, do we have to strengthen the flight deck in any way?
My take on the whole F-35B's embarked on the RAN's Canberra-class LHD's is, and has been for some time, not a question of whether it could be done, but whether or not it could be done in a manner that was not hideously expensive, and/or delivering a capability that was in essence, of little use.

Looking at what the position of some posters are or appear to have been, it seems to me that some equate the inherent ability to embark the F-35B to also mean having those F-35B's providing a useful capability. It would also appear that some advocates are ignoring how realistically expensive such a capability would be, as well as how modern warfighting, particularly in air/sea battles, is a systems-level, as opposed to a platform-level response.

Using the Canberra-class as an example, the potential use as an carrier for fighter jets runs into some problems rather quickly. IIRC there is space aboard for 18 'medium-sized' helicopters to be carried, between the hangar and light vehicle deck, however only one of the two aircraft elevators (the aft one) is able to handle helicopters of the size and/or weight of the CH-47 Chinook. I take that to mean that a medium-sized helicopter would be considered comparable to a MRH-90 Taipan, which has about half the MTOW of a CH-47 Chinook, which itself has a MTOW of ~4,500 kg less than a F-35B Between the greater displacement for the F-35B, as well as the larger dimensions, I would not anticipate and LHD being able to embark more than ten F-35B's, and these would be at the space/weight expense of other assets which could be embarked. If one of the LHD's could actually embark 10 F-35B's, that IMO would still not provide much of a capability since ~6 aircraft would be needed to provide three CAP flights and absent a organic AEW capability, a theoretical task force would need to rely upon ship-based radars for domain awareness. If a task force is already dependent on shipboard sensors, then one might as well rely upon the shipboard air defence systems like SAM and/or CIWS. Another alternative would be to acquire an organic AEW capability, but this would mean that the RAN and/or ADF had to acquire the additional AEW capability, plus the F-35B, plus allocate the funding to setup the trainings to use the F-35B, as well as establishing an ongoing programme to ensure that F-35B useage could continue by maintaining a stream of new pilots who can take off/land from a ship.

Further, if an organic AEW capability was introduced (along with the associated training and developmental costs to create doctrine, conops, etc.) sufficient AEW units would need to also be embarked, with these embarked aircraft requiring space at the expense of other units which would be otherwise carried.

So far, it still seems as though people cannot help themselves and think 'aircraft carrier' when seeing a flat top LHD, all the while ignoring why USN CVN's are so potent, namely the size of their embarked air combat force, as well as a significant organic sensor footprint which enables the carrier (and associated CBG) to make better potential employment decisions/
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Yes it is TOO HARD when you equate our LHDs with aircraft carriers and a lot of F-35Bs embarked. Probably a good example are the USMC with usually 6 F-35Bs embarked and NOT necessarily any at all - depends on the mission. Similarly our LHDs COULD have the capability to embark a small number of F-35Bs, as I have mentioned numerous times now. Even IF these F-35Bs are never needed to embark at any given time, except for training exercises, then having the ability to be a spare deck for other F-35Bs from other countries (which seem to multiply these days) would will be a good result. Think how an F-35B can plug into a CEC, especially airborne even if only one on a BARCAP. Better'n none at all methinks. YMMV. It is all about the network, guiding weapons not necessarily carried by the F-35B, locating targets the sea level forces cannot see.

Don't forget VL/STOing an F-35B is EASY. Any number of test/pilots have said so even when they had no prior STOVL experience. As mentioned soon JPALS will enable auto VL in any reasonable weather (sea state yet to be decided).

YES there is a lot of ADF resistance to this idea. Once the RAAF understand how an F-35B ashore (much like an F-35A only better in some circumstances) can support our ARMY and even ships nearby from Distributed STOVL Ops, even though logistics may be hard (every thing is HARD in the ADF until it gets worked out and exercised until no more kinks) what a potential deterrence for bad actors in our region. OMG they may not know IF F-35Bs are embarked - or not - they still can't see them. Oh dear. :)
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
There is more to operating a Fighter jet off a Ship effectively then just taking off, Landing, refuelling and rearming both the Air & Ground Crews need to be able to get the experience in of working on a Ship in very different work conditions then they are used to(if your talking RAAF), in the daytime, Night time, Cold Weather, Hot weather, wet weather, Heavy Seas, calm Seas. A Flight Deck with Fighter Jets is no place for large numbers of inexperienced people, that's a disaster waiting to happen and after 36 years I would doubt there is any institutional knowledge left in how to operate fast Jets of a Ship in the RAN. This means that you are going to have to spend months every year with 1 of the LHDs working only with the F-35 Sqns to build up a respectable capability taking that Ship away from the Missions we got them for.
I really think that operating RAAF only F-35Bs off the LHDs would be a disaster waiting to happen, you are talking about Amateur hour.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Yes it is TOO HARD when you equate our LHDs with aircraft carriers and a lot of F-35Bs embarked. Probably a good example are the USMC with usually 6 F-35Bs embarked and NOT necessarily any at all - depends on the mission. Similarly our LHDs COULD have the capability to embark a small number of F-35Bs, as I have mentioned numerous times now. Even IF these F-35Bs are never needed to embark at any given time, except for training exercises, then having the ability to be a spare deck for other F-35Bs from other countries (which seem to multiply these days) would will be a good result. Think how an F-35B can plug into a CEC, especially airborne even if only one on a BARCAP. Better'n none at all methinks. YMMV. It is all about the network, guiding weapons not necessarily carried by the F-35B, locating targets the sea level forces cannot see.

Don't forget VL/STOing an F-35B is EASY. Any number of test/pilots have said so even when they had no prior STOVL experience. As mentioned soon JPALS will enable auto VL in any reasonable weather (sea state yet to be decided).

YES there is a lot of ADF resistance to this idea. Once the RAAF understand how an F-35B ashore (much like an F-35A only better in some circumstances) can support our ARMY and even ships nearby from Distributed STOVL Ops, even though logistics may be hard (every thing is HARD in the ADF until it gets worked out and exercised until no more kinks) what a potential deterrence for bad actors in our region. OMG they may not know IF F-35Bs are embarked - or not - they still can't see them. Oh dear. :)
The above is still ignoring all the implications involved in changing the ADF structure which would realistically be required if F-35B's were to be embarked.

Using the USMC operations as an example is, IMO, a non-starter since the USMC is considerably larger than the whole of the ADF on it's own, with the US armed forces being larger still, which enables a greater range of flexibility in terms of force size. A US Wasp-class LHD and escorts can operate independently, or be paired with a CBG as needed, or the US could have several LHD's operating together with different force mixes, depending on the need.

With the RAN only having a pair of LHD's, and nothing else which is capable of providing an organic AEW capability like the E-2 Hawkeye apart from MH-60R Seahawks, and with any F-35B's embarked coming at the expense of helicopters and/or light vehicles aboard the Canberra-class LHD's, that presents the RAN and ADF with a problem. The USMC can operate varying numbers of either AV-8 or F-35B jets, as well as performing the amphibious role, while for the RAN and ADF it really is an either/or situation. This in turn is a problem because Australia only has a pair of LHD's, which means that training and deployments can be done for either amphibious OR fast jet-embarked roles, not both.

Also, while the jet itself might be easier to fly, especially for VL, when compared with previous jets, there is much more to making effective use of a fast jet than just flying it. Given the reference to CEC and the emerging reality that the shooting platform can be completely different and distinct from the sensing platform... IMO it would be better value for Australia to acquire platforms which provide a broad area sensor footprint which can be organically deployed from a task force. Yes, the sensors on an F-35 are very advanced and capable, but they are not designed or positioned to provide the kind of volume aerial/sea searches that AEW and/or MPA aircraft engage in routinely.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
There is more to operating a Fighter jet off a Ship effectively then just taking off, Landing, refuelling and rearming both the Air & Ground Crews need to be able to get the experience in of working on a Ship in very different work conditions then they are used to(if your talking RAAF), in the daytime, Night time, Cold Weather, Hot weather, wet weather, Heavy Seas, calm Seas. A Flight Deck with Fighter Jets is no place for large numbers of inexperienced people, that's a disaster waiting to happen and after 36 years I would doubt there is any institutional knowledge left in how to operate fast Jets of a Ship in the RAN. This means that you are going to have to spend months every year with 1 of the LHDs working only with the F-35 Sqns to build up a respectable capability taking that Ship away from the Missions we got them for.
I really think that operating RAAF only F-35Bs off the LHDs would be a disaster waiting to happen, you are talking about Amateur hour.
So helicopter deck crews could not adapt to occasional F-35B ops (probably mostly in a training environment). Hmmm. I don't underestimate those good deck crew people. At present there are two flat deck F-35B nations that some of our deck crew could gain experience. The UK appear to have done that with a ten year gap. I gasp to remember the transition from Sea Venom ops to A4G with deck crew in sandshoes and no float coats and only cloth head covering (thankfully all these safety issues remedied fairly quickly enabling the survival of VF-805 brake man when an A4G went overboard in a fierce storm off New Zealand - he wore a float coat). Senior Deck Crew Personnel watch over the 'inexperienced' quite well in my estimation. Now the USN has just instituted virtual reality training for their young deck sprogs. Ah the joys of the future.

Virtual Training Means Less Danger for Carrier Flight Deck Crews 29 Nov 2018

Please have more respect for ADF deck crews abilities. They are not in an 'amateur hour'. They train with other aircraft from other nations also. There is also a VR deck crew LHD trainer at NAS Nowra along with a REAL DUMMY DECK with REAL sized plastic aircraft to push around etc.

I've always wondered how 'taking away [LHD] Missions we got them for" when these same LHDs DO NOT GO TO SEA because the environment is not safe without extra FLEET DEFENSE. As some wag put it 'politicians will lose their seats' if an LHD is lost at sea when loaded with a full complement of personnel and equipment 'for the mission'.NowrsVRsimLHDdeckCrewFORUM.jpg
 
Last edited:

SpazSinbad

Active Member
'Todjaeger' the concept seems to be difficult for you. The USMC were used as an example for having a small number (usually six I'm told) of F-35Bs embarked. These are multi-role aircraft, the USMC are learning what an excellent difference they make compared to the Harrier. We have only just started to grasp these new concepts here. I'm patient. We will learn from USMC/UK/Japan and Italy (confirmed F-35B flat deck users) with others perhaps to follow - Turkey for example and Spain in the far future. I'll be patient.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Another alternative would be to acquire an organic AEW capability, but this would mean that the RAN and/or ADF had to acquire the additional AEW capability, plus the F-35B, plus allocate the funding to setup the trainings to use the F-35B, as well as establishing an ongoing programme to ensure that F-35B useage could continue by maintaining a stream of new pilots who can take off/land from a ship.

Further, if an organic AEW capability was introduced (along with the associated training and developmental costs to create doctrine, conops, etc.) sufficient AEW units would need to also be embarked, with these embarked aircraft requiring space at the expense of other units which would be otherwise carried.
I'm not sure organic AEW capability is really required. Australia has Wedgetails, with a nearly 7,000 mile range and refuelling capability, and short runway capability, could operate from Christmas Island, Butterworth or Lombrum/Manus base.

What we won't have is fixed wing fighters that are ideal for operating off Christmas or Lombrum. As we sell off the hornets to Canada (I can't believe they are actually going through with it), and the SH is few in number, mostly fitted for EW, and older are less capable not really directly deployable, and refueling platforms unable to operate off those shorter runways, you have a bit of a hole developing in the capability as we acquire these new far flung islands to project power from, but no platforms that can really protect them. They become obvious targets for an opposition to apply pressure to.

Any carrier task force is unlikely to operate outside of the range of our Wedgetails and P8's in any warm scenario. Let alone outside of JORN, sat, UAV and allied capability. Any of our Frigates, destroyers or Wedgtails can operate as a command and control centre and remotely fire and target weapons and sensor fuse with all assets in theatre. That is why we paid for CEC capability for all of these units.. In this case I think Australia is a head of the UK or say France.

The point about the number of ships is a valid one, and we flogged Bill and Ben in their amphibious role, and we are flogging the LHD's in their new found role. We don't have enough ship to support the desired ARG capability, even as a theoretical maximum. We haven't really got a great long term plan for the Army for its sustainable and expandable Amphibious training etc. We are still learning to walk amphibiously, but we have already outgrown our shoes.

Moving Choules along to some other role (like an Auxillary, like it was built to be) would create space for a third LHD (or similar, some aviation capable amphibious ship).

Now with three ships of that capability, you can deploy your ARG and support some fixed wing ops. Or be able to swing and provide some sort of majority carrier role, embarking 6-10 aircraft and a reasonable sortie rate for a short period some distance from one of these more forward island posts. Enough that other assets (from Guam, or mainland Australia etc) could support act and fill in the space.

Airforce wants 100 F35's. The only way I can see them getting that 4th squadron of manned fighters is through something jointly supported. Forward deployed off the islands and with a portion embarked on 1 LHD continuously. Its in the vague realms of possible.

But this is years and years off. A new ship is probably a 5-10 year deal. You would probably want more P8's and Wedgetails and have that northern navy base built. You would want the subs to be really underway and secure. You would want the US and UK do really have the F-35B sorted and having a regional partner like Japan throwing in too would be helpful. Our F-35A should all be FOC. The Tigers are a higher priority for something armed to fly off the LHD's. Probably want more Romeos too.

If your putting together 10-20 year plan, then there are elements that can be pulled together before committing to big specific items like the airwing itself.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I haven't really heard any discussion about Australia requiring a third LHD but it is obvious that our current ships are being very heavily used. I recall reading somewhere that they have already racked up more sea time than the Juan Carlos.

With the white paper foreshadowing a new logistics ship in the late 2020 and the Choules due for replacement in the 2030s there would seem to be an opportunity for an extra LHD sometime in the next 10 to 15 years. In fact by the 2030s the two current LHDs will probably require midlife upgrades so an extra hull might be necessary to cover for the older ships.
 

Stampede

Active Member
I haven't really heard any discussion about Australia requiring a third LHD but it is obvious that our current ships are being very heavily used. I recall reading somewhere that they have already racked up more sea time than the Juan Carlos.

With the white paper foreshadowing a new logistics ship in the late 2020 and the Choules due for replacement in the 2030s there would seem to be an opportunity for an extra LHD sometime in the next 10 to 15 years. In fact by the 2030s the two current LHDs will probably require midlife upgrades so an extra hull might be necessary to cover for the older ships.
If I recall someone in a white uniform put there hand up for a third LHD when selection was made.
I think the response was " their out of control"
Cannot find the quote so going off memory.
Sadly an opportunity missed.

Regards S
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
If I recall someone in a white uniform put there hand up for a third LHD when selection was made.
I think the response was " their out of control"
Cannot find the quote so going off memory.
Sadly an opportunity missed.

Regards S
It could be a lot easier to argue the case for a third LHD now that there are already two in service.
 

Stampede

Active Member
My take on the whole F-35B's embarked on the RAN's Canberra-class LHD's is, and has been for some time, not a question of whether it could be done, but whether or not it could be done in a manner that was not hideously expensive, and/or delivering a capability that was in essence, of little use.

Looking at what the position of some posters are or appear to have been, it seems to me that some equate the inherent ability to embark the F-35B to also mean having those F-35B's providing a useful capability. It would also appear that some advocates are ignoring how realistically expensive such a capability would be, as well as how modern warfighting, particularly in air/sea battles, is a systems-level, as opposed to a platform-level response.

Using the Canberra-class as an example, the potential use as an carrier for fighter jets runs into some problems rather quickly. IIRC there is space aboard for 18 'medium-sized' helicopters to be carried, between the hangar and light vehicle deck, however only one of the two aircraft elevators (the aft one) is able to handle helicopters of the size and/or weight of the CH-47 Chinook. I take that to mean that a medium-sized helicopter would be considered comparable to a MRH-90 Taipan, which has about half the MTOW of a CH-47 Chinook, which itself has a MTOW of ~4,500 kg less than a F-35B Between the greater displacement for the F-35B, as well as the larger dimensions, I would not anticipate and LHD being able to embark more than ten F-35B's, and these would be at the space/weight expense of other assets which could be embarked. If one of the LHD's could actually embark 10 F-35B's, that IMO would still not provide much of a capability since ~6 aircraft would be needed to provide three CAP flights and absent a organic AEW capability, a theoretical task force would need to rely upon ship-based radars for domain awareness. If a task force is already dependent on shipboard sensors, then one might as well rely upon the shipboard air defence systems like SAM and/or CIWS. Another alternative would be to acquire an organic AEW capability, but this would mean that the RAN and/or ADF had to acquire the additional AEW capability, plus the F-35B, plus allocate the funding to setup the trainings to use the F-35B, as well as establishing an ongoing programme to ensure that F-35B useage could continue by maintaining a stream of new pilots who can take off/land from a ship.

Further, if an organic AEW capability was introduced (along with the associated training and developmental costs to create doctrine, conops, etc.) sufficient AEW units would need to also be embarked, with these embarked aircraft requiring space at the expense of other units which would be otherwise carried.

So far, it still seems as though people cannot help themselves and think 'aircraft carrier' when seeing a flat top LHD, all the while ignoring why USN CVN's are so potent, namely the size of their embarked air combat force, as well as a significant organic sensor footprint which enables the carrier (and associated CBG) to make better potential employment decisions/

I think most on Defence talk know enough about the issue not to claim the LHD is anything other than what it is..............essentially a large flexible platform to conduct a range of tasks to contributing to the mission at hand. At this stage it is amphibious skills. Jump to the future the question is will it be utilised across the full spectrum of its design.
The leading question is the fixed wing conversation.
I can understand the hostility to the proposal. Their are indeed many other priorities and one would want some return from putting the F35 B on the Canberra Class for the time and investment in building up this capability.

For myself the F35B is not about what it doesn't give you or its limitation, but rather the opposite!
Does this capability have justification. I would say yes.
It's attributes are many and even deployed in small numbers the aircraft may just be the game changer that decides events.

But I will not call it an Aircraft Carrier .

Regards S
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
If I recall someone in a white uniform put there hand up for a third LHD when selection was made. I think the response was " their out of control" Cannot find the quote so going off memory. Sadly an opportunity missed. Regards S
:-( The artickle was here but no longer: http://www.news.com.au/national/air...et-4bn-wish-list/story-e6frfkw9-1111115876869

Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list 25 Mar 2008
"THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier, an extra air warfare destroyer and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet. The RAN wants a third 26,000 tonne amphibious ship equipped with vertical takeoff jet fighters, a fourth $2 billion air warfare destroyer and cruise missiles that could It also coincides with a Federal Government push to save $1 billion a year in defence costs as well as a government-ordered White Paper which will set the spending priorities for the next two decades. According to insiders, the Government was unimpressed by the RAN's push for more firepower at a time when the Government is aiming to slash spending. "The navy is out of control," one defence source said...."
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
:-( The artickle was here but no longer: http://www.news.com.au/national/air...et-4bn-wish-list/story-e6frfkw9-1111115876869

Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list 25 Mar 2008
I remember back in the late 90s the navy had a wish list that included several MRA (Multi-Role Auxillary) and a large LSS(Litoral Support Ship).

The MRAs were to have a displacement of around 20,000 tons, had a flight deck big enough to operate around half a dozen helicopters, and had a dock.

RAN considers aircraft carrier plan
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/2000/2000-1 - 0025.PDF

The LSS was for all intents and purposes an Aircraft Carrier. It would have either a steam catapult or a ski jump and the plan was to operate up to 20 F-18A hornets.

Back then everybody thought it was a pipe dream. Defence spending was a low priority and the best amphibs we could afford were a couple of secondhand rust buckets. Fifteen years later we got the Canberra class.

I think the navy might be in this for the long-term and I don't really believe they have given up on the second part of their plan.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
To be fair Gov sold the Navantia to Defence with an option of a fourth as it was so much cheaper than the Baby Burke, And Bazan/Izar/Navantia did produce designs for a small catobar carrier BCAS 220 from which the story goes the sold the designs to China


The link in Spanish(I cant read it ) has an artist impression along with early drawing of JC1
Archivo 2001-2003 - Revista Naval

A rough Google translation
As regards the construction of conventional aircraft carriers, the latest known project from the hoisting technical offices refers to the SAC-220 model, a 27,000-t displacement vessel prepared to operate 25 fixed-wing devices.

The SAC-220 was the result of the requirements expressed at the time by the high command of the Navy of the Republic of Argentina, which sought a replacement for its old aircraft carrier May 25. The project did not prosper, and it seems difficult to do so in the medium term, given the difficult economic situation in the Austral country. In spite of this, the ARA tries to keep its Naval aviation operational, through exercises in aircraft carriers from allied countries such as Brazil or the United States, waiting perhaps for better times.

The SAC-220 was subsequently offered to the Marinha de Brasil, which, in similar circumstances, was looking for a replacement to its Vetus aircraft carrier Minas Gerais. This country finally decided to accept a tempting offer coming from Franci
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Somebody Somewhere (but not over the rainbow) wondered about 'power requirements' for our LHDs with F-35Bs mebbe. Their wish is USN command: Mobile Shipboard Power Plant Ready for Production 27 Nov 2018
"Shipboard testing finished in May on the new Shipboard Mobile Electric Power Plant (SMEPP), which will replace the stalwart but aging A/S37A-3, a SMEPP deployed aboard Navy carriers worldwide. The new SMEPP is an Abbreviated Acquisition Program managed by the Aviation Support Equipment Program Office, and boasts increased electrical capacity to support aircraft with increased power demands (such as the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye) and has the power type to support F-35 maintenance needs. The SMEPP also improves access for Sailors to perform on-vehicle maintenance tasks and remove sub-assembly modules. Additionally, the power plant’s higher reliability will result in lower fleet support costs. The SMEPP is a drivable power unit with various electrical outputs that support existing and next-generation aircraft aboard aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. It supplements deck-edge power, powering an aircraft’s electrical system to support preflight and maintenance operations...." Mobile Shipboard Power Plant Ready for Production
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top