Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[Stampede]

Certainly highlights the need for numbers.

Without pursuing the F35B debate, would their be merit in a land based training facility replicating the Canberra class.
Built to the same size as Canberra s Flight deck, complete with Island structure, ramp and lifts ( Static ) next to an area sized the same as the below deck hangar/ vehicle park. Complete with walls ( A Fence will do, Moving big things in tight places )

I think a marked area was replicated on an existing airfield though not to full size.
Suggest it would be an asset for both flight training, plus also for the aircraft handlers to gain proficiency in doing their trade.

Another consideration would be to either multi crew the ships ( Three crews for Two ships ) or at least have over capacity in those personal trained in flight operations and logistics.
Still an expense for all of the above suggestions but I'm sure it will assist in maintaining ship availability with given ship numbers.

Thoughts Stampede.



PS - Found some of Preceptors leftover pudding crumbs on the plate which I eat quietly to myself with left over brandy custard. - Bliss!

 

[SpazSinbad]

Certainly highlights the need for numbers. Without pursuing the F35B debate, would their be merit in a land based training facility replicating the Canberra class. Built to the same size as Canberra s Flight deck, complete with Island structure, ramp and lifts ( Static ) next to an area sized the same as the below deck hangar/ vehicle park. Complete with walls ( A Fence will do, Moving big things in tight places ) I think a marked area was replicated on an existing airfield though not to full size. [RONG!] Suggest it would be an asset for both flight training, plus also for the aircraft handlers to gain proficiency in doing their trade. [RITE!]

Another consideration would be to either multi crew the ships ( Three crews for Two ships ) or at least have over capacity in those personal trained in flight operations and logistics.
Still an expense for all of the above suggestions but I'm sure it will assist in maintaining ship availability with given ship numbers. Thoughts Stampede...."

I'm used to people not reading the material provided, however it would be beneficial to download and read this PDF (yet to be made about DUMMY DECKS). I'll attach a colour photo of the DUMMY DECK at NAS Nowra which is full sized so that Aircraft Handlers and others can move about LIFE -sized plastic helos on the LIFE-sized LHD deck marked out. This is a common practice in the RN/RAN Fleet Air Arms. A CVF deck with plastic water filled F-35Bs and real life Harriers with engines running is available in the UK.

The 'dummy deck' PDF will take awhile so don't wait up.... AHA! SYCAMORE is the RAN/ARMY Helo Landing Training Ship recently acquired and now in service. And... The PDFs on the page with SYCAMORE deck plan drawings will indicate to me how large a PDF can be here (not so much IIRC now). Anyhoo… search on 'Sycamore'.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Bugged out on the SYCAMORE PDF search however one may start from here to see graphics - looks like I did not upload a PDF? (I have no time at moment): Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

 

[spoz]

And the dummy deck is not a new idea; the present FAA Museum in Nowra is built on what was the dummy deck for the Majestic class light fleets.

 

[SpazSinbad]

And the dummy deck is not a new idea; the present FAA Museum in Nowra is built on what was the dummy deck for the Majestic class light fleets.

My claim above still stands. "...This is a common practice in the RN/RAN Fleet Air Arms...." Your claim is not exactly correct. A DUMMY DECK for Sea Furies and Fireflys was at/near the same location (using surplus SPITFIRES to ponce about with engines running to simulate said NAVY aircraft) for HMAS Sydney Aircraft Handlers use and yes it was a Majestic Class Axial Deck Carrier. Before the end of WWII similarly similar location was the ADDLS Assisted Dummy Deck Landing Sight with an LSO 'batsman' waving WWII aircraft. The 'dummy deck' became a carpark from the end of the 'props on SYDNEY era'. In the A4G era a 'dummy deck' was outlined by portable limpet lights at night for MADDLS/FCLP usually on RW 26 but also with some effort if needed on RW 23 (threshold near old dummy deck site). Mirror ADDLS / FCLP Field Carrier Landing Practice a USN term usually conducted at an outlying airfield (not available to Nowra). Anyhoo back to amalgating the PDF. BTW everything anyone needs to know about Naval Aviation may be found in the PDFs starting from here: SpazSinbad A4G | Fleet Air Arm Association of Australia (why do I know this? Because after more than a dozen years of research and more than 14,000 pages [not always remembering exactly where they are in the PDF] has been compiled by me in my spare time). No snippet of arcane NavAv Trivia is spared - I lie - some just has to be left out.

 

[Stampede]

I'm used to people not reading the material provided, however it would be beneficial to download and read this PDF (yet to be made about DUMMY DECKS). I'll attach a colour photo of the DUMMY DECK at NAS Nowra which is full sized so that Aircraft Handlers and others can move about LIFE -sized plastic helos on the LIFE-sized LHD deck marked out. This is a common practice in the RN/RAN Fleet Air Arms. A CVF deck with plastic water filled F-35Bs and real life Harriers with engines running is available in the UK.

The 'dummy deck' PDF will take awhile so don't wait up.... AHA! SYCAMORE is the RAN/ARMY Helo Landing Training Ship recently acquired and now in service. And... The PDFs on the page with SYCAMORE deck plan drawings will indicate to me how large a PDF can be here (not so much IIRC now). Anyhoo… search on 'Sycamore'.

View attachment 46399

Thanks SpazSinbad

I had seen that PIC only once before, but bugger if I could find it so thanks very much for the image.
I wonder if they could extend the dummy deck to get the two additional helicopter landing spots and add the other bumpy bits ( Ramp and Island ).
I'm sure air flow dynamics would come in to play a lot with helicopters and how they interact with the naval geography around them.
So I'm sure baby steps on land before taking your skills to sea would be very important to say the least.

Cheers S

 

[SpazSinbad]

I'm not sure if you understand what the Dummy Deck is for the use of.... The deck allows Aircraft Handlers (who not only TOW with tractors but PUSH aircraft by many hands) to move aircraft around, the plastic models are the same size whilst weight may be varied (in some cases) with water. Certainly this is the idea behind the Dummy CVF Deck with F-35Bs getting up to 50,000 AUW IIRC. The LHD deck at Nowra probably has helos sometimes landing there for the sake of training the deck crew but not really the pilots. The pilots have SYCAMORE to land upon now. Before that they went out to a nearby destroyer deck. I've mentioned the virtual training (providing a photo I think) which also includes a big warehouse at Randwick with more life size training aids for inside the LHD I believe and AVATARS for computer simulations for the crew to work. I have not seen any of this new stuff so can only provide material in the PDF pages being assembled (they come from the 4.4Gb 14K page monster).

The ROMEO (and I'll guess the other helos) at Nowra have aircrew simulators - the new facilities at NAS Nowra are HUGE! as TRUMP likes to boast. Having a large ship tootling about for deck landing training is just laughable these days. Computer sims do the early work and then training ship and then the real deal with minimal impact on the LHD time. Test Helo pilots have already made SHOL Ship Helo Op Limits diagrams for the LHD (and any other ship our helos may land upon). Newbies don't just bumble out to do their best these days. Recall the terrible ARMY Seahawk deck landing fatal accident some years back. In my day from arriving at NAS Nowra after pilot training with the RAAF, it took 2.6 years for me to undertake my FIRST deck landing - ever - and it was not even aboard MELBOURNE but HMS Eagle off Nowra on a farewell tour of the Antipodes. And even THEN I did not arrest nor catapult but just four 'rollers' (touch and goes) because being a newbie I was not allowed to try my hand with the unusual setups of EAGLE (other more experienced A4G pilots had a go though). The first A4G cats & arrests were made aboard HMS Hermes visiting in 1969 [Brits wanted to palm it to us], MELBOURNE being in refit. Anyway my point is generally it is difficult to generalize about NavAv in olden tymes at Nowra. Probably easier to do it now with all the training aids, computer simulators and helos at NAS Nowra these days.

Back to the PDF..... Search on 'SHOL SpazSinbad' in this forum.... An F-35B SHOL (there are other hits):

Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

 

[SpazSinbad]

To wet your whistle here is a link to a 5.6Mb 6 page PDF about the SHAR Dummy Deck for F-35Bs in the UK:

F-35BDummyDeckSHARStrainingUKjan2016AIRint6pp.pdf

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=23111

Not sure where the main Dummy Deck PDF will be parked because of overall file size etc.....

At least there is one PDF attached so we know that size is OK: F-35BDummyDeckSHARStrainingUKjan2016AIRintPP10prn.pdf
This is the SAME PDF as the 5.6Mb one however it is much easier to read in a large TEXT ONLY PDF format.

2nd attached PDF is again about RN Dummy Deck with file size slightly larger so perhaps 1Mb is size limit for PDF?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think most of the training is simulations with digital models including flying. Its very extensive, right down to mechanical controls, plumbing, fire fighting (of the LHD and I think the AWD, I think they will be doing other ships as well)etc. You can add smoke, fog, bad weather etc.

For Australia we would be starting from scratch, so a squadron of F-35B's, operating from forward island bases and some training from the LHD, perhaps transporting them using the LHD, and embarking on things like the UK and US carriers would get us up to speed. If we then wanted to go full carrier, all the skills and capability that takes many years would already be there, so ramping it up would be a fairly straight forward in a medium term time-frame.

The RAAF would argue just get another squadron of F-35A and get more of what we currently have. It would be cheaper and happen faster. Other would argue just keep it at three squadrons and save the money.

 

[Stampede]

Thanks for the feedback
Regards S

 

[Sideline]

I have been a long time (almost) silent observer to this forum and I am hoping that someone nor knowledgeable can explain something to me that I don’t understand Re: the recent number of post regarding the F35b, be for I ask my question.

1. I recognise that the Australian military as a whole has become much more effective than it was 20 years ago.

2. I understand that the world is a much more volatile place that it was 20 years ago

3. It is my understanding that Global warming/climate change and population displacement and unrest that that will bring is most pressing guaranteed future issue that will affect Australia, NZ and pacific nations.

4. The introduction of Chinese political influence into the Pacific will make many issues like fishing rights, boarder security and debt-trap diplomacy a nightmare

My questions are:

Wouldn’t the future RAN Attack-class subs go further in preventing the start of hostility’s than a limited number of F35b’s.

Wouldn’t engaging / supporting the Pacific nations via 2 x Rotterdam- class or Karel Doorman amphibious ships and 4 x Damen Landing Ship Transport 120 go further in building “good relations” and political influence, not to mention helping to save Australia from MILLIONS of climate change refugees in the future.

PS Please understand that I am a F35 fan (for whatever that’s worth) and YES aircraft on ships is very sexy.

 

[hauritz]

I have been a long time (almost) silent observer to this forum and I am hoping that someone nor knowledgeable can explain something to me that I don’t understand Re: the recent number of post regarding the F35b, be for I ask my question.

1. I recognise that the Australian military as a whole has become much more effective than it was 20 years ago.

2. I understand that the world is a much more volatile place that it was 20 years ago

3. It is my understanding that Global warming/climate change and population displacement and unrest that that will bring is most pressing guaranteed future issue that will affect Australia, NZ and pacific nations.

4. The introduction of Chinese political influence into the Pacific will make many issues like fishing rights, boarder security and debt-trap diplomacy a nightmare

My questions are:

Wouldn’t the future RAN Attack-class subs go further in preventing the start of hostility’s than a limited number of F35b’s.

Wouldn’t engaging / supporting the Pacific nations via 2 x Rotterdam- class or Karel Doorman amphibious ships and 4 x Damen Landing Ship Transport 120 go further in building “good relations” and political influence, not to mention helping to save Australia from MILLIONS of climate change refugees in the future.

PS Please understand that I am a F35 fan (for whatever that’s worth) and YES aircraft on ships is very sexy.

The F-35B would be like the navy's swiss army knife. It wouldn't simply be a strike aircraft or fighter. It would also be capable of delivering in the ISAR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) and Electronic Warfare roles. It would also be fully networked with other aircraft and ships giving you a substancial force multiplier. Even a handful of them operating from an LHD would contribute enormously to the survival of the task force and provide valuable support and situational awareness when you are actually landing your forces. It is the most advanced multimission aircraft in the world.

 

[Takao]

I have been a long time (almost) silent observer to this forum and I am hoping that someone nor knowledgeable can explain something to me that I don’t understand Re: the recent number of post regarding the F35b, be for I ask my question.

1. I recognise that the Australian military as a whole has become much more effective than it was 20 years ago.

2. I understand that the world is a much more volatile place that it was 20 years ago

3. It is my understanding that Global warming/climate change and population displacement and unrest that that will bring is most pressing guaranteed future issue that will affect Australia, NZ and pacific nations.

4. The introduction of Chinese political influence into the Pacific will make many issues like fishing rights, boarder security and debt-trap diplomacy a nightmare

My questions are:

Wouldn’t the future RAN Attack-class subs go further in preventing the start of hostility’s than a limited number of F35b’s.

Wouldn’t engaging / supporting the Pacific nations via 2 x Rotterdam- class or Karel Doorman amphibious ships and 4 x Damen Landing Ship Transport 120 go further in building “good relations” and political influence, not to mention helping to save Australia from MILLIONS of climate change refugees in the future.

PS Please understand that I am a F35 fan (for whatever that’s worth) and YES aircraft on ships is very sexy.

Frankly, yes.

Which is why RAN CVs are such a low priority. With many other improvements needed + clear Government guidance + a limited budget + the size of the fleet needed for F-35B to be feasible, it just isn't worth it.

 

[Preceptor]

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.

I resemble these remarks. BTW who's fault was it that people's pudding was eaten? Far be it for me to suggest that perhaps diverting things like a food budget to pay for the Mod's beer fund might perhaps cause some irritable people to become grumpy...
-Preceptor

 

[SpazSinbad]

This 92 page 11 Mb PDF about SHOL Ship Helicopter Operating Limits, Dummy Decks (not 'Decks for Dummies') with hints of an LHD crew computer sim training warehouse, give one an idea of what it might take to train for F-35Bs on LHDs one day.

SHOLdummyDeckHeloDeckLandTraining22dec2018pp92prn.pdf

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=29176 (11Mb PDF)

 

[Stampede]

I have been a long time (almost) silent observer to this forum and I am hoping that someone nor knowledgeable can explain something to me that I don’t understand Re: the recent number of post regarding the F35b, be for I ask my question.

1. I recognise that the Australian military as a whole has become much more effective than it was 20 years ago.

2. I understand that the world is a much more volatile place that it was 20 years ago

3. It is my understanding that Global warming/climate change and population displacement and unrest that that will bring is most pressing guaranteed future issue that will affect Australia, NZ and pacific nations.

4. The introduction of Chinese political influence into the Pacific will make many issues like fishing rights, boarder security and debt-trap diplomacy a nightmare

My questions are:

Wouldn’t the future RAN Attack-class subs go further in preventing the start of hostility’s than a limited number of F35b’s.

Wouldn’t engaging / supporting the Pacific nations via 2 x Rotterdam- class or Karel Doorman amphibious ships and 4 x Damen Landing Ship Transport 120 go further in building “good relations” and political influence, not to mention helping to save Australia from MILLIONS of climate change refugees in the future.

PS Please understand that I am a F35 fan (for whatever that’s worth) and YES aircraft on ships is very sexy.

Fair questions.

My condensed response is that the ADF needs a broad range of equipment across the services to provide the range of defence capabilities required from HADR,to high end war fighting,.and everything in between.
What we get will be limited by budget and perception of need.
The rob Peter to pay Paul argument is fair enough for those like myself who are advocates of the F35B.
I can only see this capability coming through additional defence expenditure.
Would we be better off with Subs and additional amphibious vessels? Well I can see the need for Subs and understand what they do and what they don't do. However HADR is not their forte which is just the type of defence response that will increasingly be important in the future, so additional amphibious vessels certainly have a place.
So again do we rob Peter to pay Paul or spend more to acquire these ships?
If additional funds are available I'd suggest more amphibious capacity of any form before going with the F35B.
I think Army also have some gaps to fill and that presents a challenge to the defence piggy bank
So the challenge for both now and the future will be what options does the ADF offer to government and how do we deal with littoral /maritime confrontation issues far from home and with limited RAAF support?

The answer is ?


Regards S

 

[StingrayOZ]

Subs are for Sea denial - Wikipedia
Aircraft are for Command of the sea - Wikipedia

Does the RAAF get 28 more F-35A's or does it get ~24 F-35B's?
Do the you get another LHD or do you get another amphibious ship that is less capable?

I don't see Australia getting a full dedicated carrier. What we probably could do is:
* Use F-35B's from short runways, including those island airfields where 737 based aircraft could operate, but regular fighters would be very restricted or difficult to support or transport to. (Christmas and Manus islands). This would allow Australia to protect key bases we intend to operate longer range aircraft like P8's and wedgetails, making these bases key targets. We can withdraw back from these points and focus on continental power projection, and admit our limitations on power projection outside of our continental shelf. We never really have done this in the past 30 years, now we will.
* Operate a small number of F-35B's up to several thousand NM (on our LHD's) from our extreme territories. This would make a peer level power with long range capability, far less able to pressure smaller 3rd party nations with demonstrations of force. We won't have to run 24hr CAP on our pacific perimeter, but it would strongly deter opposition forces investing in that or attempting that kind of mission. No one has really been possibly be interested in that, now there are forces that can, and do this in other places in the the SEA region.
* Operate in partnership with the UK, US and Japan, conducting training, operations and deployments. F-35B's would/could cycle through regular land deployments as well.

The 73-100 F-35, it is a discussion on type, the RAAF has made it clear it wants/needs a 4th squadron
The amphibious needs put require greater amphibious ships capability. The RAN had indicated it would like a 3rd LHD, there is theoretically some money and some crew to do this.

 

[t68]

The lessons of the past operations has lead the ADF to where we are now in projection from the sea, Operation Morris dance, Solace, Stabilise, Astute etcetera etcetera.

But lesson should also prevail on the untimely implications of only have a small fleet to the task, the rule of threes come to mind HMAS Jervis bay(GT203) had just come out of refit while HMAS Tobruk went down for with defects to her propulsion systems for Op Solace. we all know they problems with the hardworking LPA's Kanimbla & Manoora, as well of the introduction to service of Choules with machinery problems and have new transformers built, also the Canberra went down with the stern doors not being able to close for some time and problems with her azimuth pods. Not all these problems were self inflicted but goes to show that problems can arise at the wrong time and has large implications when they do.

The ADF must be able to respond effectively across a wide variety of operations, and prepare for different threat levels which may or may not occur, after all, it is preferable to be able to meet these threat levels than compromise the protection of the HVT, deterrence is a victory in itself.

The ADF as a whole is increasing the capabilities to conduct expeditionary operations to a level unprecedented levels in our history, but by increasing our land capabilities deployable from the sea means we also need more comprehensive enabling capabilities to provide support and protection when deployed. Sea power influences land power, land power influences sea power, and the projection of power ashore will be influence by air power these joint capabilities will form the ADF's amphibious power projection. In each evolution of our expeditionary amphibious capability there has been one constant the inability of the RAAF to provide on call fast air support with the exception of INTERFET and the landings at Dili ET (min 30-45min wait)

In the absence of a fundamental increase of funding to achieve such a capability adding a third LHD and the ability to have a small flight of F35B for the protection of the task group is in my opinion fundamental to the ADF's amphibious power projection capabilities, a single LHD meets the requirements for the majority of conops of a single Company lift capability which could not be achieved before. even the UK with the QE cannot sustain OTH operations with fixed on call power with the current set of Albion and CV's as a majority of the rotary lift will be on them. The RAN
needs as a minimum 3x LHD to sustain a company lift capability 24/7 but to sustain a company lift and fleet defence and ground support(12x F35B) 2x LHD are needed 24/7 at any one time which means 6x LHD which is beyond our means.

With a limited budget we must always prioritise and procure inherently flexible assets which give support to the overall capabilities of the ADF by not providing air power from the sea carries the risk of strategic irrelevance to the operation a the time in a increasing changing security environment.

 

[Sideline]

Thank you all for your answers

hauritz - Everything you said is true RE swiss army knife. Fighter + ISAR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) and Electronic Warfare roles.

BUT wouldn’t expanding the MQ-4C Triton fleet give you 90% of the ISAR/EW abilities at 50% of the cost AND without losing space/other capabilities on the LHD's + giving more ISAR ability within Australia, the southern oceans and on overseas deployments​

Stampede - RE: If additional funds are available I'd suggest more amphibious capacity of any form before going with the F35B. I can only see this coming through additional defence expenditure. I think Army also have some gaps to fill and that presents a challenge to the defence piggy bank

• I agree more amphibious capacity – What sort do you think?
• What Army gaps do you think are (a) Urgent and (B) Future/desirable?

StingrayOZ – YEP, I get that – Good point about Christmas, Manus islands not to mention North West Oil fields & Timor Sea (even the oil platforms) etc. I think this is the clearest best defined need yet, Thank you


I still come back to the logic of NOW, IMPENDING, TO BE PLANNED FOR

• NOW – Climate change, Asian Political influence (Chinese wharf's, Japanese whaling, Fishing EEZ & Southern Ocean)
  
  
• IMPENDING - Major climate change weather events, Pacific refugees, fishing and sea mining/Oil area disputes
  
  
• TO BE PLANNED FOR – War or skirmish events with china while possible and need to be considered,
  But in my opinion they are unlikely because we continue to sell them what they want and it’s cheaper than fighting

Thank you all

 

[hairyman]

Preceptor, I hope you enjoyed everyone's Xmas Pudding. Well not really. But keeping in the spirit of the season can I wish everyone a joyful and safe Xmas and New Year.