Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[Todjaeger]

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?

Realistically, if one of the LHD's were utilized to conduct STOVL fast jet operations, it would mean that the amphibious capabilities would be severely curtailed at best.

The LHD's were intended to be able to transport, land, and then support a roughly battalion-sized force which could be a combined arms mix of infantry, armour/cavalry, and rotary assets. I would also assume that there were indirect fire elements included in at least some of the potential force mixes, though whether they were 81 mm or 120 mm mortars, and/or M198 or M777 155 mm howitzers I readily admit I do not know/recall.

The embarked landing craft were to be used to bring ashore the vehicles, assuming the LHD was not able to dock and offload at a port, while the planned eight embarked medium helicopters (MRH90's) would be used to bring a significant portion of the personnel to be landed ashore. As a side note, this is one of the major differences between the Canberra-class LHD and Bay-class LSD, and why the LSD lacks permanent aviation facilities as well as having such a lower capacity for embarked troops despite being able to transport more vehicles in some configurations.

At best, if the LHD's were to embark F-35B's, it would reduce the number of vehicles which could be landed. More likely IMO though, is it would both reduce the number of vehicles which could be landed, as well as eliminate the ability of an LHD to land and support troops via helicopter. If the LHD had a significant reduction it's ability to land and support a force using MRH90's, then the LHD would have a much harder and possibly no longer feasible task in conducting amphibious operations.

Stretching things out a bit to take a larger view of the impact on the ADF, trying to establish F-35B operations from the two LHD's would seriously curtail the ADF's ability to use the LHD's to establish an amphibious capability as well as manage some of the HADR responses that Australia has been conducting. It is also possible that trying to raise a STOVL capability would end up eliminating the ability to use the LHD's in amphibious roles. That in turn would effectively leave HMAS Choules as the only amphibious vessel in the RAN/ADF inventory. If the RAN/ADF amphibious fleet were allowed to be reduced to just a single vessel, that would be in spite of lessons that should have been learned from Timor Leste.

 

[seaspear]

An Izumo class with a beam of 38 metres length 248 metres could more likely have the f35b perform the SRVL than carriers like the Canberra class ,in other words if we do need that capability that could be the type to be looked at and not an extra Canberra class or reducing those capabilities of the Canberra class to carry the f35b

 

[SpazSinbad]

An Izumo class with a beam of 38 metres length 248 metres could more likely have the f35b perform the SRVL than carriers like the Canberra class ,in other words if we do need that capability that could be the type to be looked at and not an extra Canberra class or reducing those capabilities of the Canberra class to carry the f35b

I'm not sure you understand that the SRVL was enabled specifically for CVFs and tested over decades with the VAAC Harrier and computer simulation at Warton with the main test pilot Wilson conducting over 2,000 sim SRVL approaches before carrying out the first real SRVL recently. AT NO TIME has the SRVL been mentioned for other ships - except CVN use by USMC way back when the USMC were going to have an ALL F-35B force which was by agreement modified to include some F-35Cs for USMC to fulfill their commitment to a squadron on CVNs. Other than that recently because the USMC F-35Bs are going to cruise with CVFs by agreement then they are 'interested' in the SRVL because they - the USMC - may be required to carry out that approach to a CVF. The F-35B performance seems to be better than first modelled so an SRVL may never be required whilst VLs will be good on all flat decks.

 

[seaspear]

That Japan has not expressed an interest in this technique is correct if there is an advantage in the srvl why not assess the usage elsewhere

 

[SpazSinbad]

That Japan has not expressed an interest in this technique is correct if there is an advantage in the srvl why not assess the usage elsewhere

Did you miss this part of my reply above: "...AT NO TIME has the SRVL been mentioned for other ships...." You tell me then 'why SRVL usage has not been assessed for other ships". I'd be interested to find out apart from what I have said earlier. I think there is an SRVL PDF on this forum where particularly the 'dangers' of an SRVL are made clear so that they are mitigated. However all landings - even to an airfield - have risk with weather playing a big part - night or day and on and on.

Good page for a gander: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available - General F-35 Forum

THEN download the SRVL PDF:

F-35B SRVL INFO 18 Oct 2018 PRN pp 200.pdf (9.7Mb) http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=28580

Anotherie GANDER page with the entire thread being a goldmine along with the PDF:

F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available - General F-35 Forum

 

[seaspear]

I am not sure you understand my post I suggest that the Isuzu class with a beam of 38 metres compared to the Wasp America and Canberra class of 32 would be safe for an SRVL landing ,the USMC were stated as being interested in the SRVL tests during their deployment on the Queen Elizabeth for those tests

 

[SpazSinbad]

Six metres seems to make a lot of difference for you eh. Now consider that Japan - only two days ago - decided to modify their two IZUMO class flat deck ships to operate the F-35B. How can they before this 'fact' express an interest in SRVL for these ships? The Japanese may well investigate this method of approach/landing however they have not done so yet.

It seems to me you have not read the material provided in the PDF. It is clearly stated that UK interest in SRVL was there from the beginning - over two decades of development the SRVL is well known to the UK for their F-35B designed CVF. The operational ADVANTAGES may well outweigh DISadvantages for regular use OR none at all for two reasons. It is not required or deemed to be unsafe for regular F-35B pilots. This 'fact' has yet to be decided AFAIK.

The USMC test pilot stated an interest for the reason I have given already. An agreement between UK & US governments will enable a squadron or sufficient USMC F-35Bs to operate from the CVF QE for the first cruise and subsequently. Therefore IF SRVL becomes 'a thing' the USMC will need to know how to conduct an SRVL. I"m hoping YOU understand these points.

F-16.net F-35 sub-forum has a regular ex-USMC Harrier pilot 'quicksilver' contribute comments about operating from an LHA (with insights into the F-35B from those pilots). On 19 Oct 2018 he made this latest comment (there are earlier others being similarly negative about SRVLs on LHAs): F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available - General F-35 Forum

"Why no SRVL for USMC on LHA/Ds? Space available (lateral...on LHA/Ds, between the scuppers and the foul line) and deck motion. QE much larger and much more stable vessel than large Gators. Will be interesting to see if they even test such a thing on the US ships. USN made quite a conniption about it for CVN."

Earlier he has stated the roll on an LHA is quite something to contend with during a VL, similarly ex-A4G pilots flying the SHAR (Sea Harrier) at night have said VLing on CVS contending with 'the roll' was difficult. They have both said that vertical landing opposite the island is fraught because of 'the roll'. Another aspect for NO SRVLs for LHAs. For IZUMO class we'll see eh.

One would want to know about the sea-keeping qualities of the IZUMO class, particularly the ROLL aspect (recall there are SIX degrees of movement during a landing aboard a flat deck at sea). According to the PDF the UK CVF SRVL is enabled by technology available to the pilot, such as the BEDFORD ARRAY with the aircraft communicating with the ship to allow a SRVV Ship Referenced Velocity Vector seen via the vHUD in the F-35B pilot helmet HMDS to be used to point to the most ideal landing spot displayed by the Bedford Array for the conditions at that time. Test pilot Wilson (with more than 2,000 computer simulated SRVL approaches in the WHARTON sim) has said this is tricky to master at first. Perhaps it will be easier for younger 'computer gamer' F-35B pilots. I well recall the co-ordination test before my 'join the RAN FAA as a pilot' tests with a control stick and a screen dot crazily wandering about such that my job was to keep it centred. WHAT!?

The Japanese Government have recently reluctantly made it clear the IZUMO class were designed to operate F-35B aircraft with minimal modifications required (whatever that means). Were these flat decks designed for an SRVL? I'll guess we'll find out soon enough (also if a ski jump is included in said 'modifications').

 

[ngatimozart]

All right play nice people. No tossing your toys out.

The Mods are tolerating this ongoing discussion about future RAN CV in this thread. However it stays in this thread and if it spills over into other threads we will shut it down completely. @hairyman you are the culprit for spilling and people complaining, so go stand in the corner for 10 minutes and no pudding at teatime.

The reason why discussions like this grate on the Mods nerves and annoy defence professionals are that they end up being regurgitated time and again ad nauseam without adding anything of value to the discourse, plus they end up heading into fantasy land.

 

[spoz]

Here, here. Until a formal requirement is identified for a sea based fixed wing capability it is all fantasy land; and given the direction of recent defence white papers, and the probable other priorities of any incoming government, the establishment of such a requirement is most improbable, despite what we all might wish. Further, the general lack of understanding of the differences between an LHD such as Juan Carlos which is designed for occasional fixed wing operation (and of AV8Bs at that) and a real carrier such as QE is depressing. Just because the JMSDF may have designed their ships to be convertible doesn't mean that everybody else's are!

 

[SpazSinbad]

Clearly the claim that Juan Carlos was: "...designed for occasional fixed wing operation (and of AV8Bs at that)…." is not the case according to Navantia official documents. Yes JCI will need work to enable occasional F-35B ops, as has been demonstrated even by USS America, which 'apparently' was designed from the beginning to operate F-35Bs. Something was amiss in the design phase, however plans and reality are often different. Shirley we all know that. This idea that Australian Defence White Papers are some kind of 'holy tome' strikes me as silly. These 'papers' change and change again according to the situations today or in near or long term future. Perhaps before these papers were known as such I can recall HMAS Melbourne being 'converted' to an "ASW Helo Only carrier" c.1960 then by mid 1960s the fixed wing aircraft were reinstated in new form for an ASW carrier with A4G defence. Then as the threat from Badgers went away the role of A4Gs changed/was added. The nature of large flat deck ships is that over their lifetime they can be modified for new aircraft, new roles etc. To keep doggedly to the 'holy plan' seems silly when situations change and not discuss responses to changes, when new equipment is proven (F-35B) and the old guard of defence service professionals fade away, sticking to their guns, then why not discuss, discuss and discuss some more. Why be depressed? A 'little birdie' (no pun) recently told me AVM Brown was dumbfounded by the RAN having no idea about F-35B/LHD stuff. I myself find that difficult to believe and yet given some responses here I can see how that had come about perhaps.

 

[ngatimozart]

@SpazSinbad The Defence White Papers are the holy gospel according to the pollies because the DWP set out the policy for the next 5 or so years (in NZs case) and its that policy which determines what capabilities the govt will fund and not fund. In the real world govts change due to election results or in Australia's case, it's favourite national sport, spills. Unfortunately that can lead to changes in defence policy and previously adopted defence policy may be tossed down the dunny and a new one adopted. So those of us who post responses that you may not like, work within that framework because that is the construct with which the ADF and the CoA have to work within. You should remember from your days in the pussers - there were two ways of doing things; the Navy way and everybody elses way with the Navy way the only way that everything was to be done. Therefore, when it comes to defence capabilities, the DWP and its associated Capability Plan are the gospel and epistles from which everything flows.

If the RAN head shed are unaware of the F-35B / LHD tie in, then they need a good kicking in the stern quarters and maybe beached with new blood in the appropriate berths. That's the difference between the RAAF & the other two services in that RAAF are 5th generation thinking and looking to the 6th generation. The RAN is maybe 4 - 4+ and the Army 3rd thinking about going to 4th generation capabilities and they both should really be at 5th generation capability level.

 

[SpazSinbad]

That may be as you describe about DWP however they do change. How do they change? I'm happy to respond to posts whether I like them or not - to me it is irrelevant. This is the internet. This is a forum. I have no ambition to change minds. However as you can see from the material I have posted already I have the for and agin and the inbetweeners and I personally have learnt a lot from articles online and forum discussions. Sure I can only know public knowledge - so what. I'm in no danger of revealing any secrets which some here have claimed from time to time. Yes I agree about the RAN talking the 5th gen talk but they seem to be attempting to crawl walk run with it - perhaps more slowly than the RAAF because aircraft change more quickly perhaps, ships are more conservative perhaps but over their life they change also. About our ARMY I have no clue - probably I don't want to know.

 

[Stampede]

Realistically, if one of the LHD's were utilized to conduct STOVL fast jet operations, it would mean that the amphibious capabilities would be severely curtailed at best.

The LHD's were intended to be able to transport, land, and then support a roughly battalion-sized force which could be a combined arms mix of infantry, armour/cavalry, and rotary assets. I would also assume that there were indirect fire elements included in at least some of the potential force mixes, though whether they were 81 mm or 120 mm mortars, and/or M198 or M777 155 mm howitzers I readily admit I do not know/recall.

The embarked landing craft were to be used to bring ashore the vehicles, assuming the LHD was not able to dock and offload at a port, while the planned eight embarked medium helicopters (MRH90's) would be used to bring a significant portion of the personnel to be landed ashore. As a side note, this is one of the major differences between the Canberra-class LHD and Bay-class LSD, and why the LSD lacks permanent aviation facilities as well as having such a lower capacity for embarked troops despite being able to transport more vehicles in some configurations.

At best, if the LHD's were to embark F-35B's, it would reduce the number of vehicles which could be landed. More likely IMO though, is it would both reduce the number of vehicles which could be landed, as well as eliminate the ability of an LHD to land and support troops via helicopter. If the LHD had a significant reduction it's ability to land and support a force using MRH90's, then the LHD would have a much harder and possibly no longer feasible task in conducting amphibious operations.

Stretching things out a bit to take a larger view of the impact on the ADF, trying to establish F-35B operations from the two LHD's would seriously curtail the ADF's ability to use the LHD's to establish an amphibious capability as well as manage some of the HADR responses that Australia has been conducting. It is also possible that trying to raise a STOVL capability would end up eliminating the ability to use the LHD's in amphibious roles. That in turn would effectively leave HMAS Choules as the only amphibious vessel in the RAN/ADF inventory. If the RAN/ADF amphibious fleet were allowed to be reduced to just a single vessel, that would be in spite of lessons that should have been learned from Timor Leste.

Agree that the F35B would pose a challenge to current amphibious capability.
Suggest if we go done this path a third LHD would be required and a second tier of smaller amphibious vessels would also be necessary ( LCH Replacement )

A big request and commitment.
Not in the current DWP 16 but hopeful a commitment for in the future.

Regards S

 

[StingrayOZ]

With only two ships you really compromise both your amphibious capability (going from a full ARG down to a sometimes operation battalion) and your aviation capability. Also noted is the difficultly meeting our current Amphibious ambitions with the assets we currently have.

Australia's high end amphibious capability is a clear need and something no other nation other than the US can really match, at this stage, in our region. After ARG capability is shown at TS19, then it will become a priority to sustain it and make it less fragile.

This is exactly the type of situation where the government has been supportive of additional approved asset types to strengthen our initial capabilities (C17, SH, Growler etc). While an LHD is quite a big entity, it is an in-service and approved type with known costs, existing training and support in place. There has also been indications from the RAN it would be supporting in future planning. A new build could be completely F-35 capable from the get go and be a more capable than our existing LHD's in every metric. It wouldn't have to be a DWP defined acquisition.

While other possibilities exist, they are far less likely. To actually spec out a full carrier capability and then select a specific platform to do that would require a significant amount of time and money and clear strategy and need. Even then Australia would need to sort out its Amphibious capability so additional amphibious ship capability would still be required. Even then, it would only ever be a single platform, so the LHD's would still be the alternate capability. But a new specific platform would cost multi billions in platform acquisition costs, and crewing would be shattering. It would be the crewing that would be probably insurmountable. Both in terms of finding sailors and finding money to support those sailors.

 

[hairyman]

ngatimozart, are my ten minutes up yet? And where is my pudding?

 

[ASSAIL]

That may be as you describe about DWP however they do change. How do they change? I'm happy to respond to posts whether I like them or not - to me it is irrelevant. This is the internet. This is a forum. I have no ambition to change minds. However as you can see from the material I have posted already I have the for and agin and the inbetweeners and I personally have learnt a lot from articles online and forum discussions. Sure I can only know public knowledge - so what. I'm in no danger of revealing any secrets which some here have claimed from time to time. Yes I agree about the RAN talking the 5th gen talk but they seem to be attempting to crawl walk run with it - perhaps more slowly than the RAAF because aircraft change more quickly perhaps, ships are more conservative perhaps but over their life they change also. About our ARMY I have no clue - probably I don't want to know.

The great change underway within the ADF demands that each service understands each other’s CONOPS and their contribution to the whole. This is resoundingly different to the past where each service operated as a seperate entity and competed for funds.
The LHDs are truly tri service platforms providing a capability, defined by the strategic priorities of the day and at the moment those priorities are amphibious operations.

Should that change and there is no doubt that it will over the projected 50 year life of the ships, fixed wing air may once again prevail.

I have been an advocate for organic CAS on the LHDs but I also realise that our CONOPS only dictates large scale amphibious operations in a peer contested environment as part of a larger coalition, read USN/USMC, so the cost benefit of our own organic air is almost nil.
In a small regional conflict the CAS task can be done using Attack helos.

Consequently any discussion around the new platforms dedicated to the F35B or even the acquisition of the aircraft is pure wishful thinking. Does that mean the discussion should not continue, no, but it can continue (not indefinitely) knowing that it is fantasy and is unlikely to be part of the ADF for decades to come.

 

[SpazSinbad]

I'm not a fan of '[fixed wing i.e. STOVL F-35B] organic CAS' from our LHDs with F-35Bs. What interests me is how the task group manages to get to destination without the 'big assets' being sunk. Kind of defeats the mission. Sure it is nice to rely on others but 'what if' they do not co-operate and our interests 'really need us to go'. I guess we don't go then. So thinking about the future is 'wishful thinking'? Discussion here is 'fantasy'. Yep I agree. Forum discussions, without detailed knowledge of what is involved, are useless. Defence forum discussions will be ever thus if the reasons why F-35Bs cannot operate from our LHDs in an emergency are kept from us. I for one would stop dreamin' if said details were provided (to an unclassified limit of course). So far nothing. The 'nothingness' only fuels speculation - sure it is pointless - because we do not produce white papers here. I'm looking forward to the next one given recent developments up north. There are CONOPS now and 'future' CONOPS - may amphibious operations long continue successfully.

 

[ngatimozart]

ngatimozart, are my ten minutes up yet? And where is my pudding?

Your ten minutes are up and Preceptor ate your pudding. He said that it was very nice too. Mongrel ate mine and the other Mods as well.

 

[Takao]

I'm not a fan of '[fixed wing i.e. STOVL F-35B] organic CAS' from our LHDs with F-35Bs. What interests me is how the task group manages to get to destination without the 'big assets' being sunk. Kind of defeats the mission. Sure it is nice to rely on others but 'what if' they do not co-operate and our interests 'really need us to go'. I guess we don't go then. So thinking about the future is 'wishful thinking'? Discussion here is 'fantasy'. Yep I agree. Forum discussions, without detailed knowledge of what is involved, are useless. Defence forum discussions will be ever thus if the reasons why F-35Bs cannot operate from our LHDs in an emergency are kept from us. I for one would stop dreamin' if said details were provided (to an unclassified limit of course). So far nothing. The 'nothingness' only fuels speculation - sure it is pointless - because we do not produce white papers here. I'm looking forward to the next one given recent developments up north. There are CONOPS now and 'future' CONOPS - may amphibious operations long continue successfully.

I'm with you @SpazSinbad - CAS from a CV is a nice bonus. The greater reason to have a CV lies in supporting the RAN's blue water capability. Without that blue water capability, we have little expeditionary capability and even less security. Three of the most important Army assets are BRISBANE, HOBART and SYDNEY. Even the CDF in his previous role has stated that.

The issues with CANBERRA operating F-35B are operational, not tactical. There is no issues with doing it - but right now there isn't enough amphib for the high-end operations required of the ADF. Taking one of the LHDs to CV is not economical, nor is buying a third one to act as a CV (the amphib force needs that more). Better to buy a 4th/5th big grey ship (DDH / LHD / CV) and allow the specialisation training to occur. Then you have proper amphib capabilities first, then proper CV capabilities (that can x-deck in an emergency).

There is still a lot of actual intellectual work that Canberra needs to do on the amphib capability and where to go from now

 

[Todjaeger]

Agree that the F35B would pose a challenge to current amphibious capability.
Suggest if we go done this path a third LHD would be required and a second tier of smaller amphibious vessels would also be necessary ( LCH Replacement )

A big request and commitment.
Not in the current DWP 16 but hopeful a commitment for in the future.

Regards S

Realistically four or IMO five vessels, as Takao mentioned, would be required. With the typical cycle times for training, exercises, pre- and post-deployment workups and recoveries, maintenance, repair and upgrade work, as well as being either available for or actually on a deployment, three assets are usually required to provide a single instance, usually known as the Rule of Threes.

By having a force of two dedicated LHD's for the amphibious role, the RAN/ADF is kind of pushing things as they are now, if the objective is for a single LHD to be available or deployed at any given moment.

Adding a third flat top of some sort to provide a platform to operate the F-35B's from, would (IMO) only be sufficient to start developing that sort of capability. Unfortunately it would not be enough to sustain it, unless the ADF's amphibious capability was sacrificed. A single platform could be sufficient to meet the various needs except for when undergoing prolonged maintenance, repairs or upgrades, although the times required to cycle between training and operations periods would likely be prolonged. However, the capability would be in trouble when that single platform was taken out of service for repairs, maintenance, or upgrades. In point of fact, this was why the LHD was designs the way it was. Spain had anticipated using the JC I to keep up their seagoing aviation capabilities when the PdA was being worked on, prior to the economic troubles which led to the decommissioning of the PdA.

The RAN at this point does not have sufficient excess amphibious capacity given the current tempo of training and operations, to permit one of the current LHD's to be re-tasked if/when needed to conduct fixed wing aviation training. In effect, the RAN would need both the 'new' vessel which would be re-starting the RAN's fixed wing FAA, and at least a second such vessel to provide the platform for the F-35B's to train/operate from when the first vessel is on a maintenance cycle.

What then ends up boiling down to, is that the RAN would need an additional AUD$3 bil. just to buy two more vessels which could have F-35B's embarked. Assuming a dozen F-35B's were then to be purchased (more would likely be needed...) that would work out to roughly another AUD$1 bil. All of this does not include any of the additional personnel who would be needed to operate the vessels and aircraft, etc.

Either a major change in policy would need to be enacted by gov't, or surplus or 'extra' funds would need to be injected so that existing capabilities are not negatively impacted when Peter is getting robbed to pay Paul...