Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[DaveS124]

Magoo, that was you? Much respect for that article. Played with a straight bat that deflected the near sum total of hot air and tech falsehood that have passed for news and comment on this idea since Johnston first mooted it.

Shall keep a beady eye out for the August AA and Steve George's work.

 

[Magoo]

Magoo, that was you? Much respect for that article. Played with a straight bat that deflected the near sum total of hot air and tech falsehood that have passed for news and comment on this idea since Johnston first mooted it.

Shall keep a beady eye out for the August AA and Steve George's work.

Yep, t'was I, thanks. Steve's article is a cracker!

 

[Engines101]

StingrayOz and others,

Perhaps I can help here. I have a few years STOVL experience and worked on the F-35B programme as a ship integration engineer.

There is a common (and wholly understandable) viewpoint that the F-35B has 'problems', which include operating from ships. This viewpoint than informs assumptions about what it can and can't do. Here are a few facts that might help inform this thread.

1. The F-35B can vertically land with a full internal weapons load of around 3,600 pounds, plus enough fuel for a go around, full IMC circuit and land. That's a fairly impressive performance for a normal aircraft, let alone one that has to do a VL. But it's not an accident. It was the driving Key Performance Parameter (KPP) for the F-35B. The lift system is performing as per requirements - there is no engine 'performance drop'. The main problem the aircraft had was excessive weight, which caused a significant redesign that started in 2002/3.

2. It can carry out VLs with a full load over a range of temperatures and pressures defined in the customers' requirements. This was the 'US MIL Tropical Day'. However, back in 2002, the UK initiated studies into the possibility of getting back on board at even higher temperatures and lower pressures. This set of conditions was the 'UK Hot Day'. (essentially top end of the Persian Gulf in summer months). One of the options for achieving this was the 'Short Rolling Vertical Landing' or SRVL. It's been investigated now for some time, and looks very achievable on a large deck. I think it would be tight on an LHD, but might be possible.

3. MTOW from a ski jump is not yet known, will depend on upcoming tests at at Pax. It will be very similar to MTOW using a normal rolling takeoff. StingrayOz is very much on the button here.

4. The CONOPS for land bases would be to use the full capability of the aircraft to carry out RVLs in around 1200 feet at higher landing weights (if required) and STOs to take off at MTOW. In both cases, using far less runway that a conventional aircraft. This would also allow ops from runways at 'hot and high' conditions that rule out many conventional aircraft.

4. So, my view is that an F-35B could operate at designed MTOW off a Juan Carlos LHD up to US Mil Tropical day.

However, Sting (and hauritz) are, in my view, off target about high intensity ops, but that's understandable given the amount of disinformation out there about deck heating. This may help.

The F-35B's exhaust environment has been the subject of years of testing. The team know far more about it than the Uk ever did with the Harrier. Testing of flight deck and runway materials started in 2003.

The bottom line is that operations from LHD flight decks are fully achievable. The key problem is not deck strength, or melting, but mainly the ability of the non skid coatings to withstand the blast. The same problem affected Harrier operations. Modern coatings are being applied that have excellent resistance, but like any aspect of naval aviation, this will (and can) be managed.

So, my view is that, just like the RN and the USMC have proved for some 30 years, high intensity F-35B ops from an LHD deck are technically achievable. Of course, there has to be other stuff on and in the ship to support that, but the aircraft is not, in my view, the stopper.

As ever, it all depends on what you want the aircraft to do. Sure, the F-35B will not have the same performance in all respects that the F-35A has. But the F-35A can't operate from a ship. That's not a problem as long as you have all the land bases you need to protect a maritime operation. So here's one final set of (hopefully interesting) facts. The first aircraft shot down by a UK aircraft in WW2 was shot down by a naval aircraft. The last aircraft shot down in WW2 was by a naval aircraft. Since WW2, every single aircraft shot down by a UK aircraft has been shot down by a naval aircraft.

Putting aircraft on ships gets the aircraft closer to many of the fights. Choices about F-35B depend (in my view) on the fights you want to get involved in.

Hope this lot helps, and thanks for allowing me to contribute to the thread

Engines101

 

[Volkodav]

StingrayOz and others,

Perhaps I can help here. I have a few years STOVL experience and worked on the F-35B programme as a ship integration engineer.

There is a common (and wholly understandable) viewpoint that the F-35B has 'problems', which include operating from ships. This viewpoint than informs assumptions about what it can and can't do. Here are a few facts that might help inform this thread.

1. The F-35B can vertically land with a full internal weapons load of around 3,600 pounds, plus enough fuel for a go around, full IMC circuit and land. That's a fairly impressive performance for a normal aircraft, let alone one that has to do a VL. But it's not an accident. It was the driving Key Performance Parameter (KPP) for the F-35B. The lift system is performing as per requirements - there is no engine 'performance drop'. The main problem the aircraft had was excessive weight, which caused a significant redesign that started in 2002/3.

2. It can carry out VLs with a full load over a range of temperatures and pressures defined in the customers' requirements. This was the 'US MIL Tropical Day'. However, back in 2002, the UK initiated studies into the possibility of getting back on board at even higher temperatures and lower pressures. This set of conditions was the 'UK Hot Day'. (essentially top end of the Persian Gulf in summer months). One of the options for achieving this was the 'Short Rolling Vertical Landing' or SRVL. It's been investigated now for some time, and looks very achievable on a large deck. I think it would be tight on an LHD, but might be possible.

3. MTOW from a ski jump is not yet known, will depend on upcoming tests at at Pax. It will be very similar to MTOW using a normal rolling takeoff. StingrayOz is very much on the button here.

4. The CONOPS for land bases would be to use the full capability of the aircraft to carry out RVLs in around 1200 feet at higher landing weights (if required) and STOs to take off at MTOW. In both cases, using far less runway that a conventional aircraft. This would also allow ops from runways at 'hot and high' conditions that rule out many conventional aircraft.

4. So, my view is that an F-35B could operate at designed MTOW off a Juan Carlos LHD up to US Mil Tropical day.

However, Sting (and hauritz) are, in my view, off target about high intensity ops, but that's understandable given the amount of disinformation out there about deck heating. This may help.

The F-35B's exhaust environment has been the subject of years of testing. The team know far more about it than the Uk ever did with the Harrier. Testing of flight deck and runway materials started in 2003.

The bottom line is that operations from LHD flight decks are fully achievable. The key problem is not deck strength, or melting, but mainly the ability of the non skid coatings to withstand the blast. The same problem affected Harrier operations. Modern coatings are being applied that have excellent resistance, but like any aspect of naval aviation, this will (and can) be managed.

So, my view is that, just like the RN and the USMC have proved for some 30 years, high intensity F-35B ops from an LHD deck are technically achievable. Of course, there has to be other stuff on and in the ship to support that, but the aircraft is not, in my view, the stopper.

As ever, it all depends on what you want the aircraft to do. Sure, the F-35B will not have the same performance in all respects that the F-35A has. But the F-35A can't operate from a ship. That's not a problem as long as you have all the land bases you need to protect a maritime operation. So here's one final set of (hopefully interesting) facts. The first aircraft shot down by a UK aircraft in WW2 was shot down by a naval aircraft. The last aircraft shot down in WW2 was by a naval aircraft. Since WW2, every single aircraft shot down by a UK aircraft has been shot down by a naval aircraft.

Putting aircraft on ships gets the aircraft closer to many of the fights. Choices about F-35B depend (in my view) on the fights you want to get involved in.

Hope this lot helps, and thanks for allowing me to contribute to the thread

Engines101

Excellent post,thank you and welcome

 

[t68]

StingrayOz and others,

Perhaps I can help here. I have a few years STOVL experience and worked on the F-35B programme as a ship integration engineer.

There is a common (and wholly understandable) viewpoint that the F-35B has 'problems', which include operating from ships. This viewpoint than informs assumptions about what it can and can't do. Here are a few facts that might help inform this thread.

1. The F-35B can vertically land with a full internal weapons load of around 3,600 pounds, plus enough fuel for a go around, full IMC circuit and land. That's a fairly impressive performance for a normal aircraft, let alone one that has to do a VL. But it's not an accident. It was the driving Key Performance Parameter (KPP) for the F-35B. The lift system is performing as per requirements - there is no engine 'performance drop'. The main problem the aircraft had was excessive weight, which caused a significant redesign that started in 2002/3.

2. It can carry out VLs with a full load over a range of temperatures and pressures defined in the customers' requirements. This was the 'US MIL Tropical Day'. However, back in 2002, the UK initiated studies into the possibility of getting back on board at even higher temperatures and lower pressures. This set of conditions was the 'UK Hot Day'. (essentially top end of the Persian Gulf in summer months). One of the options for achieving this was the 'Short Rolling Vertical Landing' or SRVL. It's been investigated now for some time, and looks very achievable on a large deck. I think it would be tight on an LHD, but might be possible.

3. MTOW from a ski jump is not yet known, will depend on upcoming tests at at Pax. It will be very similar to MTOW using a normal rolling takeoff. StingrayOz is very much on the button here.

4. The CONOPS for land bases would be to use the full capability of the aircraft to carry out RVLs in around 1200 feet at higher landing weights (if required) and STOs to take off at MTOW. In both cases, using far less runway that a conventional aircraft. This would also allow ops from runways at 'hot and high' conditions that rule out many conventional aircraft.

4. So, my view is that an F-35B could operate at designed MTOW off a Juan Carlos LHD up to US Mil Tropical day.

However, Sting (and hauritz) are, in my view, off target about high intensity ops, but that's understandable given the amount of disinformation out there about deck heating. This may help.

The F-35B's exhaust environment has been the subject of years of testing. The team know far more about it than the Uk ever did with the Harrier. Testing of flight deck and runway materials started in 2003.

The bottom line is that operations from LHD flight decks are fully achievable. The key problem is not deck strength, or melting, but mainly the ability of the non skid coatings to withstand the blast. The same problem affected Harrier operations. Modern coatings are being applied that have excellent resistance, but like any aspect of naval aviation, this will (and can) be managed.

So, my view is that, just like the RN and the USMC have proved for some 30 years, high intensity F-35B ops from an LHD deck are technically achievable. Of course, there has to be other stuff on and in the ship to support that, but the aircraft is not, in my view, the stopper.

As ever, it all depends on what you want the aircraft to do. Sure, the F-35B will not have the same performance in all respects that the F-35A has. But the F-35A can't operate from a ship. That's not a problem as long as you have all the land bases you need to protect a maritime operation. So here's one final set of (hopefully interesting) facts. The first aircraft shot down by a UK aircraft in WW2 was shot down by a naval aircraft. The last aircraft shot down in WW2 was by a naval aircraft. Since WW2, every single aircraft shot down by a UK aircraft has been shot down by a naval aircraft.

Putting aircraft on ships gets the aircraft closer to many of the fights. Choices about F-35B depend (in my view) on the fights you want to get involved in.

Hope this lot helps, and thanks for allowing me to contribute to the thread

Engines101

Very informative post thanks for sharing your experience's . But I for one don't feel that the aircraft per say is the problem for the Canberra just the ability of the ships to have an overall effect without compromising the other aspects of the ship for which the LHD was purchased for,operating F35B for short periods is not the problems but sustaining the effort and having the ability to do all the other jobs concurrently.

If we have a need to place fast jets at sea then we have a requirments for a dedicated carrier full stop

 

[Volkodav]

The Canberra's should make an excellent platform to redevelop a fixed wing aviation capability and to support it going forward if used to supplement a purpose designed platform. I am still concerned at the effect permanently operating F-35Bs would have on the platforms intended amphibious and command roles.

 

[Engines101]

Folks,

Perhaps I can help.

There's no doubt that if the ADF were to add a permanent fixed wing capability to the LHDs then I absolutely agree something that is currently planned for the ship would have to give. But the key word is 'currently'.

In war, things rarely (if ever) go as planned, and as ships have long service lives the only certainty one can offer is that they will end up doing things that they were neither designed or purchased (or intended) to do.

In 1981, I was personally told by a senior RN officer that HMS Invincible (around 20,000 tons) was an 'ASW Command Cruiser', and that 'playing around' with Sea Harriers to provide a 'secondary aviation capability' was 'diverting attention' from their 'proper role'. He meant that sincerely and professionally. Sixteen weeks later we were sailing for the Falklands, where Hermes took the ASW lead and we had to run the air war. Our 'limited' and 'probably ineffective' aircraft (RAF quotes there) were the single vital key to our success. Very few saw that one coming.

STOVL offers the ability to put a meaningful amount of 'air power' on a smaller hull than any other technical solution out there. And with a bit of ingenuity (which the ADF has in spades) you can put a lot of STOVL 'air' on a small ship. We operated with 7 Sea Harriers, 11 Sea Kings and a Lynx right through the Falklands, beating all existing records for numbers of hours and sorties flown. Hard? Yes. But feasible.

One option would be to run a 'Tailored Air Group' concept, much as the RN did and the USN/USMC do, and adjust the aircraft embarked for the intended mission. Helicopter heavy for amphib ops (with full air cover provided by someone else), some F-35Bs if longer range strike of air defence is required.

All I can do is offer the technical fact and experience. It's an ADF call on how they exploit the ships. But if STOVL is off the table, they might as well take the ski jump off and get a helo spot back.

Hope this stuff is helping

Engines101

 

[Volkodav]

That's the thing, a smaller, possibly cheaper, purpose designed carrier could deliver greater capability at lower cost while leaving the Canberras to fill their primary role most of the time but still able to surge with F-35Bs and ASW helos as required.

A capable through deck design could be acquired for the approximate cost of a GP frigate and add to the effectiveness of any task force they are a part of.

 

[John Fedup]

Engines 101

Thanks for the two excellent posts, very informative. The first post needs to be on this thread but it perhaps should be duplicated on the F-35B/F-35C thread in the Air Force and Aviation forum as well where it will also be well received.

 

[SpazSinbad]

G'day Engines and thanks.

 

[t68]

Folks,

Perhaps I can help.

There's no doubt that if the ADF were to add a permanent fixed wing capability to the LHDs then I absolutely agree something that is currently planned for the ship would have to give. But the key word is 'currently'.

In war, things rarely (if ever) go as planned, and as ships have long service lives the only certainty one can offer is that they will end up doing things that they were neither designed or purchased (or intended) to do.

In 1981, I was personally told by a senior RN officer that HMS Invincible (around 20,000 tons) was an 'ASW Command Cruiser', and that 'playing around' with Sea Harriers to provide a 'secondary aviation capability' was 'diverting attention' from their 'proper role'. He meant that sincerely and professionally. Sixteen weeks later we were sailing for the Falklands, where Hermes took the ASW lead and we had to run the air war. Our 'limited' and 'probably ineffective' aircraft (RAF quotes there) were the single vital key to our success. Very few saw that one coming.

STOVL offers the ability to put a meaningful amount of 'air power' on a smaller hull than any other technical solution out there. And with a bit of ingenuity (which the ADF has in spades) you can put a lot of STOVL 'air' on a small ship. We operated with 7 Sea Harriers, 11 Sea Kings and a Lynx right through the Falklands, beating all existing records for numbers of hours and sorties flown. Hard? Yes. But feasible.

One option would be to run a 'Tailored Air Group' concept, much as the RN did and the USN/USMC do, and adjust the aircraft embarked for the intended mission. Helicopter heavy for amphib ops (with full air cover provided by someone else), some F-35Bs if longer range strike of air defence is required.

All I can do is offer the technical fact and experience. It's an ADF call on how they exploit the ships. But if STOVL is off the table, they might as well take the ski jump off and get a helo spot back.

Hope this stuff is helping

Engines101

Whole heartily agree when things are tough you use the equipment you have got on hand and make do, but the reason the Invincables were able to so successfully move from an ASW centric carrier to one with more fast air was it did not have to also provide sealift for an amphibious assault that was what the 2x Fearless class LPD were for as well as STUFT

As for the ski jump if it was able to be deleated without cost I believe they would have at the time

 

[aussienscale]

Folks,

There's no doubt that if the ADF were to add a permanent fixed wing capability to the LHDs then I absolutely agree something that is currently planned for the ship would have to give. But the key word is 'currently'.

In war, things rarely (if ever) go as planned, and as ships have long service lives the only certainty one can offer is that they will end up doing things that they were neither designed or purchased (or intended) to do.

STOVL offers the ability to put a meaningful amount of 'air power' on a smaller hull than any other technical solution out there. And with a bit of ingenuity (which the ADF has in spades) you can put a lot of STOVL 'air' on a small ship. We operated with 7 Sea Harriers, 11 Sea Kings and a Lynx right through the Falklands, beating all existing records for numbers of hours and sorties flown. Hard? Yes. But feasible.

One option would be to run a 'Tailored Air Group' concept, much as the RN did and the USN/USMC do, and adjust the aircraft embarked for the intended mission. Helicopter heavy for amphib ops (with full air cover provided by someone else), some F-35Bs if longer range strike of air defence is required.

Engines101

Welcome to the forum, great couple of contributions to kick off

Agree with what you have said there, it does depend on the mission at hand and the Tailored Air Group is definately a solution that can be put into play depending on mission requirements of the day so to speak.

And while it could be a very hand and effective capability, a lot of us believe the limiting factor for the RAN and the Canberra Class LHD is the lack of fuel and ammunition bunkerage on board.

The Canberra's/JC1 only have a capacity of 900m3 of jet fuel, not sure how that compares to Invincible ? and a lack of ammunition bunkerage, mainly when you are talking weapons for fixed wing ops is a real issue.

The Canberra's are an inherently flexible ship, but there are limiting factors, hence the suggestion that for price, a purpose built strike/ASW STOVL carrier, supplemented by the LHD's would be a much better way to go

Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

Very informative post thanks for sharing your experience's . But I for one don't feel that the aircraft per say is the problem for the Canberra just the ability of the ships to have an overall effect without compromising the other aspects of the ship for which the LHD was purchased for,operating F35B for short periods is not the problems but sustaining the effort and having the ability to do all the other jobs concurrently.

If we have a need to place fast jets at sea then we have a requirments for a dedicated carrier full stop

Firstly; Engines welcome and thanks for your excellent summary.
The RAN is highly unlikely to obtain a dedicated f/w asset anytime soon so those that champion it are definitely "wishful thinkers" no matter how desirable it may be.
This then leads to adapting the LHD's to a limited f/w capability by including say 4 x F 35's for CAS.
I suspect the difficulties in doing this are overstated as this is what they were designed to do by the Armada. We have merely substituted Tigers for Lightnings in our intended CONOPS so changing back should be achievable.
A deployment of 4 x F-35's embarked on the LHD's would be an enhancement to their primary task, not a detraction IMHO.

 

[meatshield]

G'day Engines and thanks.

Heck Spaz you are everywhere!!

 

[King Wally]

Firstly; Engines welcome and thanks for your excellent summary.
The RAN is highly unlikely to obtain a dedicated f/w asset anytime soon so those that champion it are definitely "wishful thinkers" no matter how desirable it may be.
This then leads to adapting the LHD's to a limited f/w capability by including say 4 x F 35's for CAS.
I suspect the difficulties in doing this are overstated as this is what they were designed to do by the Armada. We have merely substituted Tigers for Lightnings in our intended CONOPS so changing back should be achievable.
A deployment of 4 x F-35's embarked on the LHD's would be an enhancement to their primary task, not a detraction IMHO.

Took the words out of my mouth ASSAIL. I think the way you summarise the situation is in my opinion anyway the most likely debate that we are going to have. The Tigers vs F-35B argument is really where this may come back to. I think when you focus your mind back toward this and avoid getting over-excited with dreams of dedicated carriers you remain closer to the realm of where we are at and where we may end up potentially.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hope this stuff is helping

Engines101

Great series of posts their engines. I think you raise some really good points and great to hear from someone with a much deeper understanding of the issues. Just want to clarify I am not against the LHD being used for F-35 ops per se, its more about what do we want to do with the f-35 (cas, strike, air) and what we want to do with the LHD (MEU? 3000 personnel?).

Good stuff tho.

 

[Volkodav]

Took the words out of my mouth ASSAIL. I think the way you summarise the situation is in my opinion anyway the most likely debate that we are going to have. The Tigers vs F-35B argument is really where this may come back to. I think when you focus your mind back toward this and avoid getting over-excited with dreams of dedicated carriers you remain closer to the realm of where we are at and where we may end up potentially.

It could be done but what is the mission impact ? 4 to 6 Lightnings will need much more space and support than the same number of Tigers. Then there is the question of what they will be doing in mission terms, CAS only, or will they be involved in ISR, maritime strike and air defence? Start adding missions and you rapidly outstrip what can be handled by a detachment of 4 to 6 aircraft, limit them to one mission only and you are wasting one of the most advanced and capable combat aircraft ever developed.

No way around it, to do this properly, either strategic objectives need to change or more big ships, be they amphibs or carriers, need to be bought.

 

[t68]

Firstly; Engines welcome and thanks for your excellent summary.
The RAN is highly unlikely to obtain a dedicated f/w asset anytime soon so those that champion it are definitely "wishful thinkers" no matter how desirable it may be.
This then leads to adapting the LHD's to a limited f/w capability by including say 4 x F 35's for CAS.
I suspect the difficulties in doing this are overstated as this is what they were designed to do by the Armada. We have merely substituted Tigers for Lightnings in our intended CONOPS so changing back should be achievable.
A deployment of 4 x F-35's embarked on the LHD's would be an enhancement to their primary task, not a detraction IMHO.

Whilst you are replacing the ARH with F35B in CAS role can the F35 do the recon role, trade offs, not saying it can't be done like that but what is the impact when doing joint air ops and the amphibious element. Considering we have to make room for F35B, ARH, Chinnook, MRH 90.

Also was under the impression that the only time the Spanish were putting F35 on JC1 was when their carrier was in the dock, but that's changed since they paid her off.

 

[Joe Black]

It could be done but what is the mission impact ? 4 to 6 Lightnings will need much more space and support than the same number of Tigers. Then there is the question of what they will be doing in mission terms, CAS only, or will they be involved in ISR, maritime strike and air defence? Start adding missions and you rapidly outstrip what can be handled by a detachment of 4 to 6 aircraft, limit them to one mission only and you are wasting one of the most advanced and capable combat aircraft ever developed.

No way around it, to do this properly, either strategic objectives need to change or more big ships, be they amphibs or carriers, need to be bought.

Buy a 3rd Canberra class LHD and configure it as a carrier first (F35Bs, helos, with loading bay turned into hangers and weapon storage) with supplementary amphibious/landing capability, ie, carrying the typical LCMs, and potentially carrying special forces equipment instead of carrying army assets.

 

[Punta74]

Spain/Navantia I believe had a design to originally replace Pda, not that it will happen now due to budget issues, but does anyone know what the design was based on ?