But the LHD can still take fuel from AOR's etc. As such she can restock fuel, including JP5, provided this asset is available.
Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD
- Thread starter BOFORS
- Start date
- Status
Do the Aussie Canberra's have the same capacity for JP5 as the JC1?
We can only assume they do, to the best of my knowledge there has been no official confirmation on Navy or any other Government released information stating the Fuel capacities, so we can only go by what has been published by Navantia and the Spanish Armada.
Don't see why it would be changed, nothing to gain from it and fuel is always down low and squeezed into otherwise useless spaces anyway so there would be nothing to gain.
Cheers
There was a english language paper written by someone ( Natavia?) about the difference between the JC1 and Canberra Class. It wasn't flagged as a change (then again the refueling wasn't flagged).
The JC1 was designed for Spains CONOPS and needs. JC1 might be all the carrier Spain needs (at least for now). Spain currently only operates harriers. F-35B operations will be very interesting. I would imagine it would perhaps inform if they get a specific new ship for F-35 operations.
Joe Black
Active Member
BTW, it was reported that JC1 cost the Spaniards $550mil US per ship but $1.6B AUD per ship for us in Aust. Even after adjusting for the exchange rate differences, Canberra class cost quite a fair bit more... I wonder why.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The first thing that comes to mind is that the price mentioned for the JC1 was not the "same" price for the RAN LHD's. Kind of like some of the price discrepancies which regularly come up when discussing aircraft purchases. If one price is using "fly-away" costs, and another price is the aircraft plus training and support packages... Then the exact same aircraft can have some very different prices.
IIRC the ADF has started/uses a projected total cost of programme price, which is a bit different (more) than just a straight purchase price.
-Cheers
Which includes through life sustainment IIRC
Correct Tod, Australia does use a pretty different system for Defence costings to other nations, taking into account all you have mentioned and more, it is a costing model that is being looked at by the US.
GF will be able to comment more specifically on how we cost, and think it was him who mentioned some time ago that the US was looking at our model
Cheers
Both Spain and Australia have expressed interest in operating the F-35B off their LHDs. I heard mention that the decks would have to be able to withstand the heat generated by the F-35 on landing.
I had know idea that this would be such a major issue until I started researching it.
https://www.strategypage.com/\htmw\htmurph\articles\20140705.aspx
Even the USN is experiencing problems in dealing with the F-35 heat management issues. Australia and Spain might be better served to just sit back and wait to see if the USN and RN can solve these problems before they jump in.
On top of everything else it seems to me that the F-35B may have problems operating anywhere without specially constructed landing pads, which surely must bring into question whether or not the B version is worth the effort. After all the big argument for the F-35B is that it could operate anywhere ... which apparently it can't.
I had know idea that this would be such a major issue until I started researching it.
https://www.strategypage.com/\htmw\htmurph\articles\20140705.aspx
Even the USN is experiencing problems in dealing with the F-35 heat management issues. Australia and Spain might be better served to just sit back and wait to see if the USN and RN can solve these problems before they jump in.
On top of everything else it seems to me that the F-35B may have problems operating anywhere without specially constructed landing pads, which surely must bring into question whether or not the B version is worth the effort. After all the big argument for the F-35B is that it could operate anywhere ... which apparently it can't.
Dont expect any serious involvement in the F-35B development process by the Spanish Armada, there is no money remember?
We are on the brink of ditching the Harriers, so the only fixed wing taking off from the JCI in the near future will more likely be an american plane on a cross nation exercise.
I cant talk for the aussie ones.
Care to name a fast jet that can operate "anywhere"? That phrase wasn't ever used by any operator. You honestly think an aircraft producing over 40,000lbs of downwards thrust can really just operate over "anything"?
It doesn't take off vertically for a start (operationally) so it requires the same runway any other fixed wing fast jet does. It can land over vastly more locations than a regular fixed wing fast jet however and that provides significant flexibility that can't be replicated.
That's what makes it unique.
Doesn't that kind of support the point I am making?
If it needs a regular runway to take off from then what exactly is the advantage it has over a regular F-35?
If you have to construct special pads for it to land, then it might in fact be a lot more difficult to operate than a standard F-35.
What you end up with is an aircraft that costs more, can't fly as far, can't carry as much and doesn't seem to offer any significant operational advantage.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Little bit confused here,
The flight deck on Canberra is 202m or 662ft i take it the F35B can safely use that area at MTOW with ski jump, now America class are 257m long with an estimated useable flight deck of 230m or 755ft without a ski jump. Now according to an article in aviation week when the F35B operates at an improvised forward operating location it needs a 3,000-ft. runway or 915m, I can see some of the up lift and shorter distance will be wind over the deck and the ships own speed but it appears the aircraft needs three times the distance on land than at sea, is this correct?
Opinion: F-35B Vertical Landings In Doubt For U.K. | Defense content from Aviation Week
The flight deck on Canberra is 202m or 662ft i take it the F35B can safely use that area at MTOW with ski jump, now America class are 257m long with an estimated useable flight deck of 230m or 755ft without a ski jump. Now according to an article in aviation week when the F35B operates at an improvised forward operating location it needs a 3,000-ft. runway or 915m, I can see some of the up lift and shorter distance will be wind over the deck and the ships own speed but it appears the aircraft needs three times the distance on land than at sea, is this correct?
Opinion: F-35B Vertical Landings In Doubt For U.K. | Defense content from Aviation Week
They are two different requirements with two different CONOPs.
The FOL is using the aircraft with larger loads and operating much like a conventional jet. I can't recall the exact requirements but I believe for example the F-35B would be able to return with weapons and fuel (and at a greater take off weight) etc. Also on a ship your ~ 10m in the air, with wind across the deck and nothing poking out of the ground past the horizon, on land you are likely to have obstacles at the end of the runway (trees, mountains etc)
UK was looking at rolling landings to bring back a full F-35B.
The ship based VL proposition you basically got to come back empty fuel and weapons (well ditching of left over fuel and left over larger weapons).
UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight | Aviation International News
To be honest the JC1 design can't maintain any sort of high tempo operation for deck heat to be a huge worry (IMO), and for the navies using it a rolling landing would be on the cards and by the time spain/Australia would be operating F-35B's the US and UK would have a solution in play and the F-35B will be further refined.
JC1 would be useful to conduct training, pure recon/surveillance, short term operations (1-2 weeks) as your regular (or allied) carrier steams into theatre or to relieve a carrier short term. Also as no one has a great way to move F135 engines in and out of theatre, you can use your (or allied) LHD to move airframes/engines in and out.
JC1 has useful F-35 compatibility. That doesn't mean its a fully fledged stand alone super carrier. A US(ESC) or UK taskforce with a carrier, would have many additional options with a JC1 LHD operating with it purely supporting air operations. Its an auxiliary role, not a primary one.
The FOL is using the aircraft with larger loads and operating much like a conventional jet. I can't recall the exact requirements but I believe for example the F-35B would be able to return with weapons and fuel (and at a greater take off weight) etc. Also on a ship your ~ 10m in the air, with wind across the deck and nothing poking out of the ground past the horizon, on land you are likely to have obstacles at the end of the runway (trees, mountains etc)
UK was looking at rolling landings to bring back a full F-35B.
The ship based VL proposition you basically got to come back empty fuel and weapons (well ditching of left over fuel and left over larger weapons).
UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight | Aviation International News
To be honest the JC1 design can't maintain any sort of high tempo operation for deck heat to be a huge worry (IMO), and for the navies using it a rolling landing would be on the cards and by the time spain/Australia would be operating F-35B's the US and UK would have a solution in play and the F-35B will be further refined.
JC1 would be useful to conduct training, pure recon/surveillance, short term operations (1-2 weeks) as your regular (or allied) carrier steams into theatre or to relieve a carrier short term. Also as no one has a great way to move F135 engines in and out of theatre, you can use your (or allied) LHD to move airframes/engines in and out.
JC1 has useful F-35 compatibility. That doesn't mean its a fully fledged stand alone super carrier. A US(ESC) or UK taskforce with a carrier, would have many additional options with a JC1 LHD operating with it purely supporting air operations. Its an auxiliary role, not a primary one.
t68
Well-Known Member
Cheers thanks for that, so your saying when F35B operates off a small LHD such as Canberra/Cavour they won't be at MTOW?
Understand the need to ditch the weight when recovering the aircraft but always assumed that when needed can launch at MTOW.
Well, that remains to be seen. From what I can see there is some concern in high temperature and/or low pressure - engine performance may be less than expected so MTOW would be less (again I assume). Also with the ski-jump we have yet to see any public data on its effectiveness with the F-35B and how much that fixes the issue and what is the total effect on the operation of the aircraft. I would guess and say the ski-jump makes a large difference (similar if not more than to a harrier) and is far less marginal on conditions.
Its a very advanced plane, and the F-35B is right at the limits of what is possible. Of all the variants, the B is pushing the boundaries to the max - there is nothing else like it. Given the concerns of the Uk, it may be the MTOW and MLW may (will?) only be under optimal conditions (wind, temp, air pressure, humidity etc).
This is all theoretical IMO stuff. It may be the performance drop is not enough to affect CONOPs - effectively MTOW all the time. It might be huge and result in certain loads/weapons being unavailable under certain conditions, which I think is realistic, given how slim the margins already are and how extensive the weight loss program has been.
Thats not to say it won't be an awesome plane. But a F-35B will have few restrictions that a F-35A and F-35C won't really have to worry about as much.
knightrider4
Active Member
F-35b
Interesting article and POV regarding the F-35B operating from the LHD's
LHD and STOVL – An Engineer
Interesting article and POV regarding the F-35B operating from the LHD's
LHD and STOVL – An Engineer
Hello all.
That ASPI article is by far the best tech account of the ADF STOVL idea. No doubt that's because the author actually knows what he's talking about.
Also worthy of note is a brilliant long article in the current Australian Aviation magazine about all this. The journo clearly did his homework to the nth degree, all the while quietly debunking almost all of the startlingly ill-informed nonsense that's been run in the media this year. I bought three extra copies for others to keep in their files. With luck any more reporting and comment will be of the factual quality in these two pieces.
That ASPI article is by far the best tech account of the ADF STOVL idea. No doubt that's because the author actually knows what he's talking about.
Also worthy of note is a brilliant long article in the current Australian Aviation magazine about all this. The journo clearly did his homework to the nth degree, all the while quietly debunking almost all of the startlingly ill-informed nonsense that's been run in the media this year. I bought three extra copies for others to keep in their files. With luck any more reporting and comment will be of the factual quality in these two pieces.
The author, Steve George, is vastly qualified to make the STOVL operations from LHDs observations he has. He is writing an extended version in the August issue of Australian Aviation which subscribers should be getting this week, and will be on sale next week
Thank you!
- Status