Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

Status
Not open for further replies.

t68

Well-Known Member
Well there is an image floating around of a Singapore Technologies E-170 design with the F-35B in mind, but that's all it is.

View attachment 46385
Yeah the Endurance 170 LHD is considerable smaller than the Canberra class which would make a good consideration for a Canterbury replacement, I’d imagine it would have greater limitations than Canberra
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yeah the Endurance 170 LHD is considerable smaller than the Canberra class which would make a good consideration for a Canterbury replacement, I’d imagine it would have greater limitations than Canberra
For a CY replacement it is ideal. As for the basis of a future hypothetical CVL for the RAN, RSN and JMSDF it is too small.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Even the US has deployed F-35Bs from its LHAs ahead of the F-35C operating from its fleet carriers.
.
No surprise. The reason there is an F-35B at all is so that the USMC could replace their Harriers aboard the LHAs and LHDs. The F-35C is later because the USN had no such urgency - though that's now upon them too.

oldsig
 

KiwiRob

Active Member
Yes a common design would be good with the Japanese having recent experience , maybe a slightly enlarged Izumo would be the ticket, where to build will be the tough choice.


But I would dearly love to see it happen
Where to build would be pretty obvious wouldn’t it, it can’t be Australia or Singapore which leaves Japan which can build vessels of any size you like.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
No surprise. The reason there is an F-35B at all is so that the USMC could replace their Harriers aboard the LHAs and LHDs. The F-35C is later because the USN had no such urgency - though that's now upon them too. oldsig
Let us not forget the Level 1 (Tier 1) - the only one - United Kingdom for their F-35Bs on CVFs to replace a long lost CVS Joint Force Harrier capability.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Where to build would be pretty obvious wouldn’t it, it can’t be Australia or Singapore which leaves Japan which can build vessels of any size you like.

I imagine that they could make use of the Keppel Shipyard Benoi Yard which has a 350x60x12 with a DWT capability of 300000t, but depending on block size and weights they may have to up grade the cranes, is Goliath still for sale at Rosyth?

Japan would build in house as for Singapore depends on how much they want the work from the RAN, and is it worth upgrading the yard to handle a bigger crane.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
It isn't really that the JC1 design can't operate as a platform for F-35B's, its just very limited as one. If all you need is 1-6 aircraft, it can probably do that. Temporary carrier, CAS, deterrent, training etc. But it wouldn't be a CVL. It would be a LHD. At this stage its unproven, but that will change with time.

The Japanese from what I can see are planning to operate up to 10 F-35's from a modified Izumo. (probably conservative)
The Italians seem to be up to 16 F-35's from Cavour.
The Italians also seem to have a larger LHD in Italian aircraft carrier Trieste - Wikipedia. Which should displace 33,000t, 2 Mt30, full LHD capabilities, 245m length. 9 helo spots, no jump, 25kt speed. Two island layout, edge lifts, I would imagine it would be quite capable.

I would say take a good look at Trieste and benchmark it. We might be able to consider something similar as a 35,000t LHD based off the existing JC1 design, lengthened, bigger lifts, Mt30 propulsion. The Spanish also had plans for a CVL before the money ran out.

Up from there you talking America class, QE class etc. Which then puts you into the realm of regular operation ~20+ f-35bs. Both are probably capable of well more than that particularly QE. But that exists in the $5 billion+ usd for the purchase ship alone, 700 crew for the ship alone. That gets us 1 ship. We would then need to set up training and logistics for that one single ship. For what would this carrier be for? Projecting power way out in the deep blue sea? Overpowering other nations air defences and regime change?

I just don't see the argument for a large CVL stacking up.

Some sort of LHD I think it entirely plausible. We could make some modifications to the JC1 design to enhance aviation. Or choose a LHD/LHA that has already been modified (Izumo/Trieste).
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Hi stingray

Certainly agree with the gist of your comment.
Important you mention the worry the neighbours comment.
While we should run our own race, prudence suggests we do need to be mindful what the consequences are for what we purchase.
Our local neighbours understand our geography and needs, but even they will have a limit of tolerance to a build up of a power projection capacity.
As an advocate for the LHD with fixed wing capacity I'm mindful of that fine line of defence and offence perception.
It's a tricky balancing act.
A certain Indonesian general has already questioned our need for such a ship.
No doubt more for domestic political traction than anything else. but it does become a weapon of diplomacy.
If I recall a former defence Minister made a special trip to Indonesia when we acquired additional F111's to explain our needs and pacify any fears such a purchase would make to the relationship.
While both sides know the game one still has to play by the rules.
Getting three Nimitz battlegroups would certainly raise an eyebrow.
Getting a third LHD we could politically sell overseas.
The difficulty would be selling the idea to our own public.

Regarding the above graphic,I'm guarded as to its scale and layout.
Looks a bit optimistic.


Regards Stampede
And something like 3 Nimitz probably wouldn't t get through Congress anyway as it would be rejected on the grounds of changing the balance of power in the region
 

t68

Well-Known Member
@StingrayOZ using an enlarged Canberra with MT30's is not taking into account commonalty between the ships, I think an enlarged version has merit but sort of defeats the purpose to a degree. I believe the Spanish Príncipe de Asturias replacement was a JC1 with a deck missing from illustrations that were on the net years ago, I think a JC1 with the well deck closed up and additional lifts make a good argument (think LHA 6) for a R21 replacement

If we are fair dinkum I cant see why the RAAF cant get there proposed 100 JSF and FAA get 28 for the RAN, all this would do would reset the ADF back to the same position post R21 paying off and VF805 with the same primary roles which HMAS Melbourne conducted ASW, air defence, maritime strike and close air support to the Army.

The reality is even with 3 LHD's the probability of us having them ready to go is simply the best case most likely 2 would be available at short notice, for this to really work you would need a fourth for a possibility of surging 3
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@StingrayOZ using an enlarged Canberra with MT30's is not taking into account commonalty between the ships, I think an enlarged version has merit but sort of defeats the purpose to a degree. I believe the Spanish Príncipe de Asturias replacement was a JC1 with a deck missing from illustrations that were on the net years ago, I think a JC1 with the well deck closed up and additional lifts make a good argument (think LHA 6) for a R21 replacement

If we are fair dinkum I cant see why the RAAF cant get there proposed 100 JSF and FAA get 28 for the RAN, all this would do would reset the ADF back to the same position post R21 paying off and VF805 with the same primary roles which HMAS Melbourne conducted ASW, air defence, maritime strike and close air support to the Army.

The reality is even with 3 LHD's the probability of us having them ready to go is simply the best case most likely 2 would be available at short notice, for this to really work you would need a fourth for a possibility of surging 3
Very hypothetical of course, but why do a Lazarus on the FAA -SpazSinbad tosses his coffee cup :D Why not make it a proper ADF asset having the aircrew and maintenance crew RAAF? Recovered yet @SpazSinbad My reason for suggesting this, is gaming the pollies and the system, by utilising the best that the F-35B has to offer - it's STOVL capabilities combined with the rest of the F-35 capabilities.

It will take a joint effort to get a CV past the pollies and the treasury grinchs, and the RAAF do have a track record of achieving that. So the RAN need them firmly onboard and alongside, plus such a proposal also should fit within the ARG concept. The Army also have a part to play in this, because the F-35B can supply them with fast air located close by, due to austere facilities being quickly established and utilised ashore. Split your F-35B force between the ashore element and afloat element, you have a small but effective force on hand in the immediate vicinity that does not require tanking. By having all three services presenting and supporting such a capability proposal, all things being equal, it should have a greater chance of being successful than a RAN proposal on its own.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Certainly would want all three services on board. S
Little 'birdies' (no pun intended) tell me that the ARMY is MOST opposed currently to have any Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs. I'll guess because they take away some of their STUFF being onboard. However NOT having any FLEET AIR DEFENCE F-35Bs on board (and remember I'm NOT talking about providing AIR Support for the ARMY when they get ashore) but YES the embarked F-35Bs could hop on and off to confuse targeting until RAAF F-35As or other assets reach the region to provide air support. I wonder how ARMY will get by when they are still in port because there is NO fleet air defence to keep them safe during transit. Perhaps that suits them - sinking is not an option.

I think having the RAAF Fly/Maintain the F-35Bs is the BEST idea; however said RAAF will have to find a role for the RAAF F-35Bs ashore. DSO Distributed STOVL Ops is one solution that provides air support for the ARMY and of course the 'distribution' can include an LHD off shore so the F-35Bs can play silly buggers with 'where are they landing next' to confuse any targeting. An LHD does this naturally except when ANCHORED. I'll guess there is NO ONE in the RAN - or FAA - has served with fixed wing these days, so they won't miss what they don't know. What you don't know You don't know YOU DON'T KNOW.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Very hypothetical of course, but why do a Lazarus on the FAA -SpazSinbad tosses his coffee cup :D Why not make it a proper ADF asset having the aircrew and maintenance crew RAAF? Recovered yet @SpazSinbad My reason for suggesting this, is gaming the pollies and the system, by utilising the best that the F-35B has to offer - it's STOVL capabilities combined with the rest of the F-35 capabilities.

It will take a joint effort to get a CV past the pollies and the treasury grinchs, and the RAAF do have a track record of achieving that. So the RAN need them firmly onboard and alongside, plus such a proposal also should fit within the ARG concept. The Army also have a part to play in this, because the F-35B can supply them with fast air located close by, due to austere facilities being quickly established and utilised ashore. Split your F-35B force between the ashore element and afloat element, you have a small but effective force on hand in the immediate vicinity that does not require tanking. By having all three services presenting and supporting such a capability proposal, all things being equal, it should have a greater chance of being successful than a RAN proposal on its own.

No doubt what you are saying is true in the overall scheme of things from a budgetary view for the ADF, from my point of view being Army see the LHD as a ferry to get to where they are going in large scale operations for fast air its the just look the inter-rivalry between RAF/RN, in 82 where were the most capable ex FAA fighter jets?...…………. sitting in RAF airfields. Its the same ideology why RNZAF Skyhawks were based in Nowra to provide training to the RAN that the RAAF could not provide 24/7. most people don't join the Airforce to go to sea they join the Navy to do that.

By all means have joint training between the RAN/RAAF up until joining the respective course for unit training in their respective fields
 

Stampede

Active Member
No doubt what you are saying is true in the overall scheme of things from a budgetary view for the ADF, from my point of view being Army see the LHD as a ferry to get to where they are going in large scale operations for fast air its the just look the inter-rivalry between RAF/RN, in 82 where were the most capable ex FAA fighter jets?...…………. sitting in RAF airfields. Its the same ideology why RNZAF Skyhawks were based in Nowra to provide training to the RAN that the RAAF could not provide 24/7. most people don't join the Airforce to go to sea they join the Navy to do that.

By all means have joint training between the RAN/RAAF up until joining the respective course for unit training in their respective fields
To go with the F35B would certainly be a cultural shift.
Younger folk joining the services today would need to grow up with this capability knowing their role, in their trade, in their service, and how this F35B capability fits in with them.
For some it will be integral to their job for others it will have little relevance but as a individual cog on the ADF wheel it will be recognised across the services that it is a crucial ADF asset.
This last point has not being established and would be the starting point to venture down that path.
Younger folk may be easier to teach this attribute to than older folk.
I'm not to sure who the teachers would be.
Probably from the generation before our current leadership group.
Not that the current crop don't know their stuff its just that they have grown up with an ADF without this capacity.
Sometimes healthy to step back and look at the bigger picture.

Regards S
 

Sideline

New Member
I know that, I don't know anything
I know the F-35B is very cool BUT
For the price of 8~9 F-35B: US$115.5M (LRIP 11 including engine)
not to mention any form training or operations

You would most likely able to get & crew
4 x Damen Landing Ship Transport 120
12 x AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters US$31 million (new built price)
I'm thinking this much more realistic for the 95% of the future situations that Australia might find itself facing
If we really do need F-35B on an enlarged LHD the world has truly turned to shit
 
Last edited:

t68

Well-Known Member
You would most likely able to get & crew
4 x Damen Landing Ship Transport 120
there still is a requirement under JP2048Phase 5 just not funded but there is an additional requirement for either another AOR or sealift ship which in theory has the future funds mapped out for another LHD

12 x AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters US$31 million (new built price)
There is already a programme in place for ARH replacement, additional gunships will be outgunned out ranged in 75% of the tasking from a ADF task force at sea.

I'm thinking this much more realistic for the 95% of the future situations that Australia might find itself facing
If we really do need F-35B on an enlarged LHD the world has truly turned to shit

In this case the 70% solution is not desirable as Spaz say not aircover the whole shebang stays home in a high tension environment, we cant guarantee an escort to the HVT across the spectrum in the air or under the sea 12x F35B & 6x MH-60R we need the 100% solution(air power) with the 80% platform(LHD)
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
I found an old APSI article on the possibility of operating F-35Bs on the LHDs written by a RN veteran which I found interesting. LHD and STOVL: an engineer’s view | The Strategist I didn't realise the LHD's flight deck was similar in size to the Wasp class.
Steve George has written quite a few articles about Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs. He posts as 'Engines' at Pprune, displaying extensive knowledge about STOVL ops for the F-35B & SHAR. I'll make a scale graphic of WASP class & our LHD soon. Another 'little birdie' (again no pun intended) told me that ASPI will soon publish a HIT piece about 'F-35Bs on LHDs' with other news outlets having negative articles in the works. Keep a weather eye out for Malcolm Davis at ASPI.

Over the years a collection of articles FOR & AGIN have been put into a PDF - if anyone interested it could be posted here. Certainly over at F-16.net there is an 'old' collection. But it may be sometime as I'm stepping outside. :)WASP+LHD+CVSdeckCompareFORUM.gif
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top