Last edited by a moderator:
Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD
- Thread starter BOFORS
- Start date
- Status
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Thanks. I see no specific mention except a link: The future for US Marines in Darwin which says USMC F-35Bs from MCAS Iwakuni ashore. One would expect this event along with embarked LHA F-35Bs patrolling to our north in 2019 onwards. This aspect called for & mentioned in another article that I may find again.
t68
Well-Known Member
the main problem I see for a RAN task group is that to provide a a continuous 2x2 aircraft CAP would utilizes approx. 12-18 aircraft a capability that is beyond the RAN, to forward deploy this means host nation support and a very pre-planned route analysis plus a majority of the enablers to perform, once we move outside the radius of land based aircraft this magnifies the equation some what.
If the Government is serious about the capability it also must get serious about an air supremacy bubble around the task group, china ant developing a multi group CBG to protect the mainland it's to push forward the battle from the home land.
If the Government is serious about the capability it also must get serious about an air supremacy bubble around the task group, china ant developing a multi group CBG to protect the mainland it's to push forward the battle from the home land.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
In the case for FLEET DEFENCE - GO BIG or GO HOME - is not required as explained earlier I hope. As others have posted ONE F-35B in the air will communicate with at least ONE OTHER on deck ready to go help and also if the gubbins installed in the other nearby assets (SHIPS) be able to help direct weapons on approaching target(s). Pre-planned route for the task group is all well and good however as always the enema has a vote. As seen in earlier tymes having FLEET DEFENCE deters any shadowing assets (when perhaps satellite surveillance for the enema is not enough). IF the TG does not have a DEFENCE adequate for the threat then they will stay home. I guess that is the strategy at moment.
Yes CHINA is PLANning big things for potentially a fleet of at least four carriers in future - some newbies may be 'cats 'n flaps' (ala the infamous UK howler of yore). <sarc on> I'll be giggling when the Chinese appear off Auckland. >sarc off> <sigh>
Yes CHINA is PLANning big things for potentially a fleet of at least four carriers in future - some newbies may be 'cats 'n flaps' (ala the infamous UK howler of yore). <sarc on> I'll be giggling when the Chinese appear off Auckland. >sarc off> <sigh>
I think the question of F-35B's is not are they useful, but what is the best way to get that supported capability.
1- Is it by Australia buying ~24 F-35B's, then deploying a few (=<3), on the existing Canberras.
2- Is it by Australia buying ~24 F-35B's, then replacing choules with an aviation focused ship (LHD or other), and deploying 6-12 on that perhaps with additional aviation capability (chinooks, V-22, Tigers, ASW uav's and seahawks).
3- Is it by the US Marines rotating say 6 F-35B's through Darwin, and if we ever needed something they embark on the LHD until they can get a US asset into region.
4- Do nothing, if we need anything the Americans, UK, France, Japan will provide.
4 is what we are doing now, 3 could be done in a matter of weeks.
If you want your own sovereign capability (and these days that is a big thing), then you need the capability, if you can afford it.
I think you could come up with a very capable aviation focused ship based off the LHD. But its more than just F-35's, Its firescouts, Seahawks, other UAV's.
1- Is it by Australia buying ~24 F-35B's, then deploying a few (=<3), on the existing Canberras.
2- Is it by Australia buying ~24 F-35B's, then replacing choules with an aviation focused ship (LHD or other), and deploying 6-12 on that perhaps with additional aviation capability (chinooks, V-22, Tigers, ASW uav's and seahawks).
3- Is it by the US Marines rotating say 6 F-35B's through Darwin, and if we ever needed something they embark on the LHD until they can get a US asset into region.
4- Do nothing, if we need anything the Americans, UK, France, Japan will provide.
4 is what we are doing now, 3 could be done in a matter of weeks.
If you want your own sovereign capability (and these days that is a big thing), then you need the capability, if you can afford it.
I think you could come up with a very capable aviation focused ship based off the LHD. But its more than just F-35's, Its firescouts, Seahawks, other UAV's.
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree F35B acting as a de-facto ISR bird will enhance the capability and provide a cueing for second lineBut the fact remains that F35B is the first line of defensive counter-air 100/200ks in front or flanks for the task group, frigate/destroyers the second and third is the CIWS. USN have this area covered in spades either by grouping other LHD/LHA within the expeditionary group or a CVN. only have 4/5 F35B is not a silver bullet to the problems.
Considerations for Employment of the F-35B in Amphibious Operations | Joint Air Power Competence Centre
Considerations for Employment of the F-35B in Amphibious Operations | Joint Air Power Competence Centre
SpazSinbad
Active Member
I have not read the link to JAPCC however I'm not looking for a 'silver bullet' for all occasions - just FLEET DEFENCE. We do not emulate the USMC 'knocking down doors' but protect our assets transiting to a distant shore (where any F-35Bs disembark if need be or stay on for the return journey) whilst those 'marvy Raafie Chappies' do their 'thang' otherwise. OK? But we are for Fleet Defence, Fleet Defence, Fleet Defence. 
Nice article - thanks. I could quote extensively from the last several paragraphs however this one fill fill the bill somewhat: (and I'm remembering this is mostly about the USN/USMC ops and I'm not suggesting that we attempt to emulate the might of that combo at all - just Fleet Defence)
Nice article - thanks. I could quote extensively from the last several paragraphs however this one fill fill the bill somewhat: (and I'm remembering this is mostly about the USN/USMC ops and I'm not suggesting that we attempt to emulate the might of that combo at all - just Fleet Defence)
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
If RAN/RAAF where to receive F35B having a 3/4 is a near certainty
I think that would work in a peace setting as is now, but then the questions is what supports an ARG when its lodged, with only two replenishments ships they cant both support a lodged ARG and RAN. The LHD/CVS should rotate in the role is that when we should rely on a smaller Expeditionary Transfer Dock for vessels like HMNZS Canterbury or UK Solid Support Ship or perhaps smaller LMSR (UNNS Bob Hope)
Sovereign capability goes a long way in world affairs, not just regionally
Last edited:
It depends how far we want to project carrier power and amphibious power. With 3 LHD's, Australia would have a lot of options for amphibious capability and carrier capability and mixing it between roles.
If we are deploying afar, it think it is reasonable to seek international support from someone near by.
But nearer.
I would imagine with an 3 x LHD ARG deployment the logical thing would to deploy 3 ships for a short period (1-2 weeks) then go to 2 ships. Then the 3rd can do resupply. The original LHD can do RAS oil and supplies. It can do everything the LPD can more. Any of the 3 can then rotate through this role as needed. This is still better than the 2 x LHD + 1 x LPD we have now, more capability and more flexibility.
Sure not all three might be available all the time, but you are still better off.
If we do deploy an ARG for real it will be the apocalypse anyway. Not sure the RAN will be doing anything else.
The LHD can do fuel and oil resupply for smaller RAN vessels, so for a DDG, OPV, they can then act as a mother-ship for a small deployment. This might the be able to stretch time between AOR visits. With 3, you could support two smaller task forces in different oceans effectively indefinitely. Think like for an anti-piracy mission.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Honestly, and this might not be a popular opinion, but I would rather not have the RAN/RAAF/ADF seek to introduce an F-35B capability aboard the Canberra-class LHD.
My reasons for thinking this is that the LHD's are just that, LHD's, and not some version of CV. To provide a 'real' fleet defence capability would IMO likely require a pair of F-35B's aloft at a time, to sustain this would therefore likely require six or more likely eight F-35B's be carried. Given that in the current configuration, up to 18 medium helicopters can be carried aboard if both the hangar deck (eight) and light vehicle deck (ten) are utilized, any F-35B's embarked would be at the expense of helicopters and/or light vehicles.
A loss of either capability in any number would have a negative impact on the LHD's ability to function as an amphibious ship.
With respect to the sensors available aboard an F-35B, I am of the opinion that while they are 'better than nothing', there are better options available to provide an embarked surveillance asset to increase the SA by extending a task force's overall sensor footprint. The F-35 can absolutely act as a harvester, but for volume air/sea-search, the APG-81 AESA can really only 'see' what is in the F-35's frontal arc. Three or four platforms designed for long loiter times while operating near a task force to provide sensor coverage, like the RN's Crowsnest AEW programme, I think could be achieved more easily and with less impact upon the LHD's ability to carry out it's primary responsibilities.
If the RAN/ADF/AusGov does decide to get back into fixed-wing aviation operations at sea, with all the capabilities that can provide Australia, it would be far, far better for it to be done properly with a ship designed specifically with a focus on aviation operations. While the Canberra-class could potentially have F-35B's operating from them, it really cannot do so with any great volume or without having a negative impact on the vessel's intended role. Basically instead of having a good amphib or carrier, it would end up being bad at both.
My reasons for thinking this is that the LHD's are just that, LHD's, and not some version of CV. To provide a 'real' fleet defence capability would IMO likely require a pair of F-35B's aloft at a time, to sustain this would therefore likely require six or more likely eight F-35B's be carried. Given that in the current configuration, up to 18 medium helicopters can be carried aboard if both the hangar deck (eight) and light vehicle deck (ten) are utilized, any F-35B's embarked would be at the expense of helicopters and/or light vehicles.
A loss of either capability in any number would have a negative impact on the LHD's ability to function as an amphibious ship.
With respect to the sensors available aboard an F-35B, I am of the opinion that while they are 'better than nothing', there are better options available to provide an embarked surveillance asset to increase the SA by extending a task force's overall sensor footprint. The F-35 can absolutely act as a harvester, but for volume air/sea-search, the APG-81 AESA can really only 'see' what is in the F-35's frontal arc. Three or four platforms designed for long loiter times while operating near a task force to provide sensor coverage, like the RN's Crowsnest AEW programme, I think could be achieved more easily and with less impact upon the LHD's ability to carry out it's primary responsibilities.
If the RAN/ADF/AusGov does decide to get back into fixed-wing aviation operations at sea, with all the capabilities that can provide Australia, it would be far, far better for it to be done properly with a ship designed specifically with a focus on aviation operations. While the Canberra-class could potentially have F-35B's operating from them, it really cannot do so with any great volume or without having a negative impact on the vessel's intended role. Basically instead of having a good amphib or carrier, it would end up being bad at both.
If we want to know how the ADF would operate a small fleet of F-35Bs and how they could be employed from the LHDs, other potential maritime platforms and from forward bases, just look at the Army's Tiger fleet.
22 airframes shared between two operational squadrons, a flight and maintenance training establishment and ARDU, providing a small number of deployable troops that provide an increase in capability to deployed ADF elements far in excess of their numbers. Unlike the F-35B, which would have very substantial commonality and shared logistics with the F-35A fleet, as well as reach back to an established global supply chain, the Tiger is a unique platform in the ADF, that we have made work, including on the LHDs.
To me looking at the examples of what Army Aviation and the RAN FAA have been doing for decades with small orphan fleets, the RAAF would have no problem introducing, integrating and operating effectively, a derivative of (what is going to be) its single most numerous platform. I anticipate that the F-35B would be cheaper to operate and support than the Rhino and definitely cheaper than the Growler. It would provide infinitely more versatility and capability to any deployed ADF force than any other asset that could be similarly deployed, i.e. the Tiger. As for deployed numbers, look at how few airframes we send into combat on international operations that make a substantial contribution.
Throw in the networking capabilities of the F-35 (already mentioned by others), that we are looking forward to harnessing with the land based A model, the sensor node for extended range air defence and stand of precision strike, the massively increased situational awareness and the acquisition could easily be justified as it adds far more than anything we would lose in compensation for the increased costs. The costs themselves would not be that high as the Bs would be the already forecast replacement of the Rhinos, and are a derivative of the already in service A.
This is all assuming everything (or nearly everything) else remains the same, throw some extra changes in and a game changing capability multiplier becomes a revolution in capability. Replace the last three of the nine new frigates with three DDH or CGH, common propulsion, sensors and weapons but with a through deck and hanger. This is a mid 2020s planning and decision with an early 2030s build, costs will not differ much because the biggest cost is the systems (which would be identical to those already in service) not the amount of steel in the hull, and by this time the types (helos, UCAVs, F-35B) that would use this flight deck and hanger will already be in service.
As for the belief of many that reducing the number of frigates will destroy the RAN etc. the days (post cold war) of major combatants operating alone are long behind us, or majors will always operate in task groups for mutual support, to do otherwise would be suicide. The assumption was the LHDs would never operate a lone so why would a frigate? As for the potential reduction in the number of VLS cells (not a certainty as Cavour has 32 Sylver), what is more useful for fleet air defence, an extra dozen SM-6 or half a dozen F-35B with AMRAAM that can also target SM-6 over the horizon? What is more, these ships would not only operate the F-35B, but also future VTO AEW and long range ASW and surveillance types, they could also operate the same types currently deployed on the LHDs as required, MRH90, Tiger, Chinook and Romeo, i.e. in permissive scenarios they would complement the LHDs allowing them to uplift more Army / HADR stores and equipment in place of some aviation capacity. There is also the no brainer of a task force built around a DDH/CGH operating with special forces or 2 RAR to insert and support those elements.
22 airframes shared between two operational squadrons, a flight and maintenance training establishment and ARDU, providing a small number of deployable troops that provide an increase in capability to deployed ADF elements far in excess of their numbers. Unlike the F-35B, which would have very substantial commonality and shared logistics with the F-35A fleet, as well as reach back to an established global supply chain, the Tiger is a unique platform in the ADF, that we have made work, including on the LHDs.
To me looking at the examples of what Army Aviation and the RAN FAA have been doing for decades with small orphan fleets, the RAAF would have no problem introducing, integrating and operating effectively, a derivative of (what is going to be) its single most numerous platform. I anticipate that the F-35B would be cheaper to operate and support than the Rhino and definitely cheaper than the Growler. It would provide infinitely more versatility and capability to any deployed ADF force than any other asset that could be similarly deployed, i.e. the Tiger. As for deployed numbers, look at how few airframes we send into combat on international operations that make a substantial contribution.
Throw in the networking capabilities of the F-35 (already mentioned by others), that we are looking forward to harnessing with the land based A model, the sensor node for extended range air defence and stand of precision strike, the massively increased situational awareness and the acquisition could easily be justified as it adds far more than anything we would lose in compensation for the increased costs. The costs themselves would not be that high as the Bs would be the already forecast replacement of the Rhinos, and are a derivative of the already in service A.
This is all assuming everything (or nearly everything) else remains the same, throw some extra changes in and a game changing capability multiplier becomes a revolution in capability. Replace the last three of the nine new frigates with three DDH or CGH, common propulsion, sensors and weapons but with a through deck and hanger. This is a mid 2020s planning and decision with an early 2030s build, costs will not differ much because the biggest cost is the systems (which would be identical to those already in service) not the amount of steel in the hull, and by this time the types (helos, UCAVs, F-35B) that would use this flight deck and hanger will already be in service.
As for the belief of many that reducing the number of frigates will destroy the RAN etc. the days (post cold war) of major combatants operating alone are long behind us, or majors will always operate in task groups for mutual support, to do otherwise would be suicide. The assumption was the LHDs would never operate a lone so why would a frigate? As for the potential reduction in the number of VLS cells (not a certainty as Cavour has 32 Sylver), what is more useful for fleet air defence, an extra dozen SM-6 or half a dozen F-35B with AMRAAM that can also target SM-6 over the horizon? What is more, these ships would not only operate the F-35B, but also future VTO AEW and long range ASW and surveillance types, they could also operate the same types currently deployed on the LHDs as required, MRH90, Tiger, Chinook and Romeo, i.e. in permissive scenarios they would complement the LHDs allowing them to uplift more Army / HADR stores and equipment in place of some aviation capacity. There is also the no brainer of a task force built around a DDH/CGH operating with special forces or 2 RAR to insert and support those elements.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
These are all good questions.
The Canberra class are truly flexible ships made or the more so if modified to carry and operate the F35B.
I am quite comfortable if they sail with a large aviation group of helicopters / UAV's and fixed wing and have not a single soldier,truck ,tank or any other bit of army stuff.
Like wise the opposite, if the ship sails with complete army focus with no fixed wing embarked. The combinations of personnel and equipment are as endless as the scenarios they need to fulfil. The good thing is the are Canberra Class are BIG ships.
I think if Aviation was the focus, it would not be unreasonable to see 6 F35Bs on the flight deck with a similar number in the Hangar / Garage, shared with a further 6 medium sized helicopters. This may not make it a US navy fleet aircraft carrier, yet still this is not an insignificant aviation capability for any deployed air group, be it from land or at sea.
The Canberra Class as is, still may not be optimised for high intensity sortie rates with only some 800 t of aviation fuel or have a weapons magazine that is optimal in size for such aviation tasks.
But like all things it's a balancing act of resources,capability and expectations and in this case sailing with and be supported by our new supply ships.
As an expectation I just want to see the ships to meet their full potential
Regards S
Very happy to swap Choules for another Canberra LHD.
The LHD's flexibility and it's ability to change roles quickly is not limited by it's design, but rather our imagination.
I don't think our Canberra Class have the original Juan Carlos 1 LHD RAS capability.
Can anyone confirm this and maybe the reasons for its omission.
Certainly see a need for a third Cantabria class ship for the RAN regardless of what we want to use the Canberra's for, but I think that debate belongs in another thread.
Regards S
With no disrespect to our allied partners.
It's all about Sovereign capability.
What capability we want and what to fund is the question and for myself to bore everyone "yet again", it's the F35 B at sea off the Canberra Class.
Regards S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If the ADF (RAAF and/or RAN) were to commit to an F-35B purchase, along with ordered a dedicated aviation ship along the lines of the Italian Cavour or pending Trieste, then I could see periodically embarking F-35B's aboard an LHD, much like how Spain was originally planning on using their Juan Carlos I to fill in for their now cancelled replacement aircraft carrier.
Presently though, the RAN will only have the two LHD's which means that it would take some managing.
Sorry I will have to continue this later just got a call out activation.
Posting stuff up see comment 2 posts down.
Last edited:
According to all the public information from the Italian government & Fincantieri,Trieste (if she's called that - AFAIK no name has been confirmed officially) won't be a dedicated aviation ship, but an LHD. No catapults & no ski-jump, but she'll have a dock.
Fincantieri | Multirole LHD
From this description I envisage you are designing a faster, better armed version of the Chakri Narubet. Fitted with uprated propulsion and the sensors and CMS of the future frigates but with Mk 57 VLS along the starboard edge of the flight deck. Unsure how many cells you would have with this layout, but any reduction in numbers will be compensated for by the air wing.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
My preference is for an enlarged Canberra class. Essentially ~10-15 m longer, with a slight reconfiguration for the lifts to allow aircraft to be lifted through to the lower deck. This deck could then be for deep maintenance, with large replacement equipment coming in through the dock. Other modifications would be more powerful radar, some more fuel/weapon bunkerage, and some additional generation. ~90%+ the same as the existing LHD, and the additional aviation capabilities exist without any decrease of the amphibious capability. Due to its larger size, it could embark a small airwing (6) with exactly the same amphibious capability of a regular Canberra class. This way, deploying 2 LHD will generally give us the ability to embark F-35's as well. I would then also build the well deck without the divider, allowing Lcat, LCAC or large landing craft to operate, or the regular landing craft. We then don't have to spend money and time modifying the existing LHD's. One LHD capable of embarking landing craft for >70t vehicles should be fine.
~33,000t 25kt in aviation configuration, I would fit the 8 VLS with ESSM and give it a CIWS, as it could be more self escorting capable, and have a looser escort. It could then act as a resupply ship role as Choules does. Again, this takes pressure off modifying the other LHD's.
This will be important because the only way I can see to crew and fund a ship to to replace choules.
So really its just an amped up Canberra class.
~33,000t 25kt in aviation configuration, I would fit the 8 VLS with ESSM and give it a CIWS, as it could be more self escorting capable, and have a looser escort. It could then act as a resupply ship role as Choules does. Again, this takes pressure off modifying the other LHD's.
This will be important because the only way I can see to crew and fund a ship to to replace choules.
So really its just an amped up Canberra class.
- Status