Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[swerve]

The more bizarre thing is that this is supposed to replace the MILGEM contract that the government had to retract from Koc over corruption accusations. That one was for six corvettes.

That seems to have been journalistic error.

 

[rand0m]

I've just noticed that the LC1E's have a limit of 12t when transferring from barge to barge. So that rules out the M1A1's, ASLAV's, Bushmasters, M113's. So realistically limited to infantry, G-wagons, Land Rovers, Hawkeis Correct?

he LCM-1E incorporates a stern gate, facilitating the loading/unloading of rolling stock within the flood levee, not necessary the output of the front two boats to load / unload from the rear, with a limit of 12 tons maximum for the transfer of vehicles from one barge to another.[1]

 

[the road runner]

I've just noticed that the LC1E's have a limit of 12t when transferring from barge to barge. So that rules out the M1A1's, ASLAV's, Bushmasters, M113's. So realistically limited to infantry, G-wagons, Land Rovers, Hawkeis Correct?

No Mate , the LCM-1E can carry a MBT (Abrams)and will operate out of the LHD's. We placed an order for 12 LCM-1E off Navantia and we should get a few this year 2014



LCM-1E - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[t68]

I think he is referring to when two LCME are in the well dock transferring from one to another via the stern ramp on the LCME to the other behind it, well that's my take on it not what the actual bow ramp can handle.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I've just noticed that the LC1E's have a limit of 12t when transferring from barge to barge. So that rules out the M1A1's, ASLAV's, Bushmasters, M113's. So realistically limited to infantry, G-wagons, Land Rovers, Hawkeis Correct?

I think That is refering to is for a little used but useful capability transferring from lc1e To lc1e. not something you would need to do with a MBt.

It will be the first time in a long time the adf will be able to deploy a tank off a ship effectively.

Love the jc1 with aircraft pics, looks really neat with plenty of deck space. The main issue I feel operating fixed wing aircraft off a jc1 is aviation fuel. Not a big issue when operating with harriers, more of an issue when operating f-35bs.

 

[the road runner]

I think he is referring to when two LCME are in the well dock transferring from one to another via the stern ramp on the LCME to the other behind it, well that's my take on it not what the actual bow ramp can handle.

Ahhh my mistake ,understand what he is saying now.
I am curious as to how much of an issue this would be.

Would you not reverse one unloaded LCME out of the well dock,just load up a LCME with an Abram's reverse out of the well dock.Then have the empty LCME come back into the well dock ,load up with an Abrams then have both LCME ride off into the sunset?

 

[rand0m]

Love the jc1 with aircraft pics, looks really neat with plenty of deck space. The main issue I feel operating fixed wing aircraft off a jc1 is aviation fuel. Not a big issue when operating with harriers, more of an issue when operating f-35bs.

Hopefully the Spaniards & Turks will give us an idea of how well they work on the ship (keeping in mind ours is a different internal structure). I'm certainly sceptical as to how high tempo these ships would be able to run with the limited stores/fuel. Hopefully by that time the F-35 will be able to fill whatever EW capability we require & the retired SHornets can be replaced by a few F-35B's.

Yes... we can all dream.

 

[t68]

Ahhh my mistake ,understand what he is saying now.
I am curious as to how much of an issue this would be.

Would you not reverse one unloaded LCME out of the well dock,just load up a LCME with an Abram's reverse out of the well dock.Then have the empty LCME come back into the well dock ,load up with an Abrams then have both LCME ride off into the sunset?

I would imagine if a battle group deploys with heavy armour it would most likly be in troop strength anyway(3 MBT) unless we get the SPG anytime soon,Light stuff goes on first to the rear LCME then heavy stuff runs straight of the steel beach onto the 1st LC

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Curiosities, I think the only thing left to test of JCI´s capabilities is the f35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtQVbw8Hswg

Osprey landing on its designated spot

http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/ShowBinaryServlet?nodePath=/BEA%20Repository/Desktops/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/Pages/conocenos_noticias/00_noticias/2014/06/NT-110-EJERCICIO-MAR-41_es/FOTO02//imagen&scale=none

On its way to MARS41 (AW exercise) with f101-104. f105 is on its way back from deployment on Atalanta.

And the next picture although old (2011) I think it illustrates clearly the difference between LCM1E and LCM8 , similar displacement and dimentions but an awful lot better usability of space.
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/ShowBinaryServlet?nodePath=/BEA%20Repository/Desktops/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/Pages/multimedia_galeria/13_unidades_infanteria/01_tercio_armada_es/124_fofo_TEAR//imagen&scale=none

The Armada continue to test the heck out of the platforms and I understand there is a semi-permanent team of RAN participating as observers in almost every exercise the Armada is carrying out, but you guys will know more about this point than I do.

I must say that all the reports and news I have about RAN -Armada cooperation say that is very close and intense.
I would not be surprised if we see a closer cooperation on development of f110.
The requirements are starting to look very similar!!

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Please excuse the one liner but I thought it would be good to point out that the Osprey test was about "inter-operativity". Three takes with folding , lift , hangar, fueling and take off.
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_noticias/prefLang_es/00_noticias--2014--06--NT-116-OSPREY-EN-JCI_es?_selectedNodeID=1754123&_pageAction=selectItem

This one is courtesy of Cardimp at the Armada forum

http://www.subirimagenes.com/imagedata.php?url=http://s2.subirimagenes.com/fondosycapturas/897314314464584566bb84dc77e.jpg

Regards.

 

[aussienscale]

Please excuse the one liner but I thought it would be good to point out that the Osprey test was about "inter-operativity". Three takes with folding , lift , hangar, fueling and take off.
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_noticias/prefLang_es/00_noticias--2014--06--NT-116-OSPREY-EN-JCI_es?_selectedNodeID=1754123&_pageAction=selectItem

This one is courtesy of Cardimp at the Armada forum

http://www.subirimagenes.com/imagedata.php?url=http://s2.subirimagenes.com/fondosycapturas/897314314464584566bb84dc77e.jpg

Regards.

Thanks for the updates, I knew the JC1 had the landing spot for the Osprey but did not realise that it was able to be taken on the lift and fit into the hangar, interesting, do you know if it also fits on the forward lift ? I am guessing they are the same size

Cheers

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Thanks for the updates, I knew the JC1 had the landing spot for the Osprey but did not realise that it was able to be taken on the lift and fit into the hangar, interesting, do you know if it also fits on the forward lift ? I am guessing they are the same size

Cheers

Same size yes, but is the "overhanging" capacity on the Aft lift that makes the magic possible. That is not possible on the starboard lift because is "framed".
I hope it makes sense.
Regards

 

[aussienscale]

Same size yes, but is the "overhanging" capacity on the Aft lift that makes the magic possible. That is not possible on the starboard lift because is "framed".
I hope it makes sense.
Regards

Yes looking at the picture again I see what you mean by the overhang. I guess that answers many peoples questions about why it has the cut back rather than continue on with the deck and potentially another landing spot then

Cheers

 

[swerve]

Good point. I've wondered about that myself. Future-proofing of the aft lift, eh?

 

[mankyle]

Good point. I've wondered about that myself. Future-proofing of the aft lift, eh?

That is a legacy of the Principe de Asturias pocket carrier.
The idea was that even if the aft elevator was damaged, harriers in the hangar could make a Vertical take off from the aft elevator and land in the flight deck and then resume flight operations

 

[KiwiRob]

Hopefully the Spaniards & Turks will give us an idea of how well they work on the ship (keeping in mind ours is a different internal structure). I'm certainly sceptical as to how high tempo these ships would be able to run with the limited stores/fuel. Hopefully by that time the F-35 will be able to fill whatever EW capability we require & the retired SHornets can be replaced by a few F-35B's.

Yes... we can all dream.

How different internally is the Canberra to the JC1?

 

[aussienscale]

How different internally is the Canberra to the JC1?

I have always had the understanding that from the flight deck below it is exactly the same with the exception of being built to Lloyd's naval standards, with the obvious changes in living areas etc, and the main difference was actually in the superstructure where comms, ops rooms etc have had major layout changes for specific Australian requirements

Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

I have always had the understanding that from the flight deck below it is exactly the same with the exception of being built to Lloyd's naval standards, with the obvious changes in living areas etc, and the main difference was actually in the superstructure where comms, ops rooms etc have had major layout changes for specific Australian requirements

Cheers

Also understand that magazine and fuelling arrangements are different but how different? Canberra doesn't have the capacity to refuel escorts from behind the island.

 

[alexsa]

I have always had the understanding that from the flight deck below it is exactly the same with the exception of being built to Lloyd's naval standards, with the obvious changes in living areas etc, and the main difference was actually in the superstructure where comms, ops rooms etc have had major layout changes for specific Australian requirements

Cheers

My understanding is the same...... but willing to be corrected. Navantia do note the JC1 always had a secondary air capability but it detracts from the prime role. I also understand it cannot generate the sortie rate of a 'real' carrier such as the Cavior.

 

[aussienscale]

My understanding is the same...... but willing to be corrected. Navantia do note the JC1 always had a secondary air capability but it detracts from the prime role. I also understand it cannot generate the sortie rate of a 'real' carrier such as the Cavior.

Exactly, and point in case with the fuel, JC1 has a capacity of 900m3 of JP5 compared to Cavour having 1,500m3 of JP5 and specific magazine space for fixed wing ops and associated weapons.

And I think the deletion of the capacity to refuel escorts was a bad decision, it would have been a very handy thing to have had, not sure if the ability is able to be fitted at a later date ? but guessing all the plumbing would be gone along with associated pumping equipment needed

Cheers