Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

Status
Not open for further replies.

oldsig127

Well-Known Member
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.
Not forgotten, just that it's highly unlikely it'd have gone very far for so few aircraft without the much larger USMC orders. Or that the RN/RAF could afford them

oldsig
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
It is far simpler to order a selected design and modify it that it is to select an all new design. Changing the propulsion Turbine from LM2500 to MT30 would be actually a fairly low risk change. Being an Electric pod propulsion, changing to the lower maintenance, more efficient MT30 on a 1:1 basis is fairly straight forward. The MT30 was repackaged to assist with this this change and the LHD has quite large mechanical spaces. You would get more power output, lower maintenance and operational costs, greater range, common turbine across the new generation of RAN ships. Again there is nothing wrong with the lm2500, it wouldn't have to be changed, other than it would likely be changed anyway during a mid life refit. The LM2500 used on the LHD isn't a marine engine variety anyway and the LM2500 used on the AWD is a much older version too so there isn't a whole lot of commonality at the current space in time. The MT30 really doesn't require anything other than observation and fuel during deployment it is extremely low maintenance which is why nearly every navy is transitioning from the good old lm2500. IMO replacing the lm2500 with an engine of a different type in our existing LHD's will probably happen over their life anyway.

As for speed Cavour with its 4 Lm2500 requires 25 tons of fuel per hour at full speed, so with that fuel usage you would have to resupply something with JC1 fuel reserves (1,600t) every 48 hrs, you get 2 days range at full speed. So range and endurance is very short at full speed. Sure you can put more fuel on, but then you have less space and weight for your mission. I expect most ships to cruise around at ~20kts unless there is some specific reason to go fast. Ditching poded electric propulsion would result in less room in your ship as well.

Japan has a specific problem because of the proliferation of diesel electric subs, ships and planes in their region. They don't need long endurance, they need speed. Particularly as a ASW unit, in that area of operation. Japan sees speed as an essential component of their fleet. The RAN doesn't have that problem. 22-24kt will be fine.

upload_2018-12-16_18-46-14.png
JC1 current aircraft carrier format.

A 20 meter lengthened LHD would give you 2+ more jets/helos on the deck, another helo landing spot, a longer landing (for rolling landings) and take off (heavy loads). 4 more helo/Jets in the hanger, a larger lower deck more more vehicles, more space, more room, more stores, more embarked forces. This would bring it closer to the aviation capabilities of a more dedicated platform, but with still the flexibility of the LHD. You would also be within spitting distance to the size of a Wasp or America class, same width, nearly same length, but with a ski jump. And with the familiarity of 3 of a type, also designed to operate along our new AOR and AWD's. With our current LHD operating costs.

I think that level would be pretty significant.

USS Bataan LHD-5 and USS Bonhomme Richard LHD-6 - Each with 15 harriers on deck and ready to launch. So an extended JC1 or Italian aircraft carrier Trieste, would get you to that level of capability.

So does the RAN just want a bigger and more capable ship able to deliver amphibious and aviation capability, or get an additional dedicated aviation ship (with crewing/money from magic land) and make do with its current limitations in amphibious capability.
 
Last edited:

SpazSinbad

Active Member
I would suggest that an SRVL on a narrow deck such as an LHA/LHD is a no go. One of the reasons CVFs are WIDE. This has been explained somewhere here recently. Ships have a cruise speed like any other for usual reasons. Top speed for a STO ship either flat or ski jump can be important but as usual 'it all depends' on length of deck for STO (may include ski jump) and required Max. Take Off Weight plus probably some other less important considerations.

Ships don't usually speed about at maximum speed - they cruise and accelerate as required for STO or VL. The F-35Bs have a lot of extra capability over the old Harrier. The F-35B is able to 'fly backwards at 30 KIAS in STOVL mode 4'. This means for a VL (given other considerations) the ship does not need max speed into wind. That max speed etc. may be needed for a max weight STO though for example - and then back to cruise or whatever fuel saving speed is required.
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Active Member
I thought I would share this image from the Spanish Navy site.



It shows a Harrier with a parked Bell AB 212 helicopter off the flight deck but next to the Island structure.
A question for the RAN
Have we ever conducted flight operations with helicopters parked in a similar location.
I have seen lined imagery in The Navy magazine of NH90's located there but are not sure if this is a wishful aspiration, or just unrealistic given the helicopters size.
Maybe an option for the Tiger which is quite narrow.
Any ideal as to the clearance from the foul line to the Island structure.
Any feed back is appreciated.

Regards Stampede
 

aussienscale

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Just thought I would post this while everyone seems to be on a high talking about this subject for the 29th time on the forum in the last 10 years :)

https://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/uploads/JCI_en_v2.pdf

This PDF is from 2011, but has some good info on the Navantia Amphibious ships, in particular the JC1 and deck maps for layout during "Carrier" ops etc among a fair stack of other info and comparisons, 85 pages, have fun reading, but worth it.

The pic was from an unknown source and printed IIRC in a story in the Sydney Morning Herald claiming the RAN had a 4 billion dollar secret plan to acquire an aircraft carrier, was from around the same time

Cheers

PDA2_2.jpg
 

KiwiRob

Active Member
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.
The big Keppel dock is a repair and conversion dock, not a building dock, I'm sure they could build in it but it would need a lot of upgrading.

The Goliath is apparently going to be purchased by Babcocks, it will still be needed if the UK consortium wins the Solid Stores Ships.
 

Wombat000

Active Member
It shows a Harrier with a parked Bell AB 212 helicopter off the flight deck but next to the Island structure.
A question for the RAN
Have we ever conducted flight operations with helicopters parked in a similar location.

Regards Stampede
The Bell 212 is a two rotor blade bird.
To place a four rotor helo beside the island, I'm presuming, will require the rotors to be folded.
Unless the aircraft has a folding rotor system then short stay parking would be a nightmare.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
To scare the horses or those not familiar with 'cramming aircraft in an aircraft carrier HANGAR' this graphic from the above PDF is posted, hoping people are offended nevertheless - note these are HARRIERS - not F-35Bs - this would REALLY BE OFFENSIVE and apparently boring for some for the umpteenth time. :) I like the R21 touch to the graphic.LHDjcIharrierLayoutsHangar.gif
 
Last edited:

Takao

The Bunker Group
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
AH-1 when Tiger is in service? And why are 12 additional ARH more realistic than F-35? Noting this are probably in addition to the helicopters on CANBERRA or ADELAIDE, I'll happily take closer and more responsive air support.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Just thought I would post this while everyone seems to be on a high talking about this subject for the 29th time on the forum in the last 10 years :)

https://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/uploads/JCI_en_v2.pdf

This PDF is from 2011, but has some good info on the Navantia Amphibious ships, in particular the JC1 and deck maps for layout during "Carrier" ops etc among a fair stack of other info and comparisons, 85 pages, have fun reading, but worth it.

The pic was from an unknown source and printed IIRC in a story in the Sydney Morning Herald claiming the RAN had a 4 billion dollar secret plan to acquire an aircraft carrier, was from around the same time

Cheers

View attachment 46389
If the RAN ever did find $4 billion down the back of the lounge and wanted a specialised aircraft Carrier I am not sure a modified version of the JC1 would be my first choice. I would be happy with the Australian navy got a third LDH and even bought a few F-35B to fly off them, but I think there are better choices for an actual aircraft carrier.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
What is the file size limit to upload here for a PDF please? Had thought it was 20Mb however that may be another forum. I know a picture must be less that 2,000 pixels wide, anything else escapes me - I've looked for 'attachment limits' but no joy. Links to two separate PDFs on F-16.net about 10-11Mb each could be posted here instead but thought to amalgamate both into one file if possible (under 20Mb). One PDF is about the RAN LHDs the other is about for/against arguments for F-35Bs on LHDs - both from beginning to recently.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What is the file size limit to upload here for a PDF please? Had thought it was 20Mb however that may be another forum. I know a picture must be less that 2,000 pixels wide, anything else escapes me - I've looked for 'attachment limits' but no joy. Links to two separate PDFs on F-16.net about 10-11Mb each could be posted here instead but thought to amalgamate both into one file if possible (under 20Mb). One PDF is about the RAN LHDs the other is about for/against arguments for F-35Bs on LHDs - both from beginning to recently.
Not sure @SpazSinbad might just be easier to post the links.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member

SpazSinbad

Active Member
The JDF are purchasing 42 of the F35B to base off their 'helicopter destroyers' or whatever they call their 'this is not an aircraft carrier' ships. Good opportunity for the ADF to watch and learn.
I've mentioned already that Lt.Gen. 'Dog' Davis promised to have an RAAF F-35B exchange pilot some years back so that chap should have a good look at LHA Ops (if it came to pass but nothing heard about USMC/RAAF exchange since). See page 53-54 in the 'OzF-35BinOzLHDsPDF'.
 

seaspear

Active Member
I dont want to go into fantasy realm but what is the minimum sized carrier that can be built to operate the F35-C and E2D ? S/H could even be included for air to air refuelling
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Seems to me to be a question for a NEW THREAD title? How is your question relevant to this thread about JCI/Canberra Class LHDs? These are STOVL Jet Aircraft flat decks with ski jumps. Ooops and helos & amphibiousity and all the rest of it: ARMY for example. :)
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Seems to me to be a question for a NEW THREAD title? How is your question relevant to this thread about JCI/Canberra Class LHDs? These are STOVL Jet Aircraft flat decks with ski jumps. Ooops and helos & amphibiousity and all the rest of it: ARMY for example. :)
I agree, if we did get a dedicated carrier it would be best to be STOVL, as per the Spanish plan when in extended maintenance the LHD become the secondary carrier, unless they go Brit and buy 2(tell em his dreamin son)






I dont want to go into fantasy realm but what is the minimum sized carrier that can be built to operate the F35-C and E2D ? S/H could even be included for air to air refuelling
I expect the minimum would have be the size of the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, it was lengthened to accomodate the E2 for added safety from memory
 
Last edited:

seaspear

Active Member
The reason I raised tat question is because the thread itself seems to argue for the LHD to be configured for fixed wing operations does,nt come back to the needed capabilities for the ADF and those priorities ,if a priority is identified for fixed wing capacity for naval assets then what level of capabilities are required to be meaningful ,
To come back to the Canberra class how would the capacity to perform its designed operations would be lost or affected by the adoption of fixed wing aircraft?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I dont want to go into fantasy realm but what is the minimum sized carrier that can be built to operate the F35-C and E2D ? S/H could even be included for air to air refuelling
Fantasy is not good. It makes the Mods very twitchy and gets them overly excitable.

I think that cost would preclude such a CV first and foremost. Whereas a CV along the STOVL principle is somewhat less costly especially if the intention is to operate say 12 or less fixed wing aircraft off the CV. The capabilities that an E-2D offer can be delivered by other platforms either singularly or in combination if required. The F-35B does offer advantages over the C variant as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top