LPD to CVS?

Whats been spotted in and around our Navy
Post Reply
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 4935
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

LPD to CVS?

Post by MikeJames »

An article written by someone who has absolutely no clue of what he's talking about.

The Canberra class were built to exactly the same standards as the Juan Carlos (the Spanish Navy's sister ship) which already operate the AV8B Harriers that normally operate off the Principe De Asturias, operating from Juan Carlos when PdA is in refit.

Mike


Tony Abbott aims for aircraft carriers

BRENDAN NICHOLSON THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 23, 2014 12:00AM

TONY Abbott wants the navy’s new amphibious assault ships ­fitted out to carry Joint Strike Fighters — effectively turning the giant vessels into aircraft carriers.

The proposal, which would require comprehensive structural changes to the ships costing millions, comes at a time when the government is under pressure over budget cuts.

It would also require Australia to buy an alternative version of the fighter bombers already on order.

The Prime Minister’s proposal would bring Australia into line with the US, Britain and a number of other nations that plan to operate JSFs from their assault ships.

It is understood Mr ­Abbott has instructed planners working on his defence white paper to examine the possibility of putting a squadron of 12 of the short take-off and vertical landing version of the JSFs — the F-35B — on to the ships.

Mr Abbott has just announced the purchase of 58 JSFs for the RAAF at a cost of $12.4 billion, bringing the number on order to 72. They are all standard take-off and landing F-35As and not suitable for the navy.

The 27,000-tonne assault ships, officially designated Landing Helicopter Docks or LHDs, were intended to carry helicopters rather than fixed-wing aircraft.

Operating JSFs from them would require extensive modifications to accommodate the aircraft and their fuel, munitions and parts.

The Royal Australian Navy has not had an aircraft carrier since HMAS Melbourne was decommissioned in 1982. Having landing ships carrying fixed-wing aircraft would bring a new strategic dimension to the region.

The ADF has said repeatedly that putting JSFs on to the landing ships was not being considered, but a government spokesman said the idea had not been ruled out.

When Mr Abbott’s spokeswoman was asked to comment on the JSF plan, she responded with a statement saying: “As part of the defence white paper process, Defence is conducting a comprehensive Force Structure Review.

“This will examine a range of capabilities and will provide the government with options to ensure Australia maintains a sustainable, versatile and highly capable defence force in coming decades.”

It is not clear whether the Joint Strike Fighters under the navy plan would come from the 72 that have been ordered so far. Successive governments have indicated they would ultimately buy 100 JSFs.

Past public discussion about the landing ships has focused on their value in the region in dealing with the aftermaths of natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes. Turning the LHDs into aircraft carriers would require a more detailed explanation to Australia’s neighbours.

The F-35B version of the JSF is being built for the US Marines and British forces to replace their effective but ageing British-built Harrier jump jets.

The Canberra-class assault ships will be able to land a force of more than 2000 personnel by helicopter and water craft, with all their weapons, ammunition, vehicles and stores.

It appears likely that the government will soon announce that it will order two new supply ships for the navy to be built in Australia.

The shipbuilding industry and unions have been warning for the past two years that more work is needed to bridge the so-called “Valley of Death’’ as current major projects end.

Defence Minister David Johnston told The Australian the government was “looking at plans and what ships can be built” but he would not say what class of vessel was likely to be selected.

The Australian has been told the most likely choice is the two navy support ships that Labor promised as its solution in the lead-up to the election.
User avatar
BsHvyCgn9
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 2027
Joined: 30 Jan 2010 18:33
Fleet Base: Gulf Waters
My Ship Yard: USS Long Beach CGN9
USS California CGN36
USS John Paul Jones DDG53
USS Saipan LHA2
USS Shark SSN591
USS Seawolf SSN21
USS Albany CG10
Location: Adelaide

Re: LPD to CVS?

Post by BsHvyCgn9 »

G'day Mike,

I presume that the F35B variant would be significantly heavier than an AV8B, but would it not be less than a CH47?? I can't see why they make such a big deal about using the LHD like the USN does by deploying either a Harrier air group or Helo/Osprey based air group, we obviously don't us the Osprey or Harrier. But a couple of squadron's of late version AV8B's would be able to be aquired faster than the very flawed F-35 giving the RAN an aircraft with a proven track record from small deck carriers and way cheaper too.

Also the author states that we would need to "explain" why we are putting aircraft on them!! Tell em 'cause we can! Alot of the nations north of us have small LHD sized ships or bigger(India and China)

Cheers Bruce (B2) :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
phillip08
President
President
Posts: 45
Joined: 26 Mar 2010 12:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: HMAS Vendetta II
HMAS Sydney II
HMAS Hobart (under construction)
HMAS Parramatta (under construction)
HMAS Sydney FFG (under construction)

Re: LPD to CVS?

Post by phillip08 »

It's an interesting article, the previous Gvt actaully wanted to remove the ski-jump as it offended certain minority parties. The Spanish in their wisdom put up that it would cost to much to redesign that part of the ship, the US put a heap of pressure on to leave things alone. That way they could easily cross deck Harriers etc should the need arise.
The F35B's could operate of the LCH's with no problems at all. Keep in mind that Spain while not a NATO country operates with a lot of the NATO members which means that the larger US and UK helo's (and the now US Harriers etc) cross deck.
Why ask the neighbours? They certianly do not ask us about their ever increasing very hi-tech defence purchases.
AUS could have picked up the Ex Brit Harriers (and the pilots) but the Gvt of the day did not wish to return to the days of a fixed wing part of the Fleet Air Arm or a RAAF- Navy Co-Operation unit.
The next Defence whilte paper is due out in 2015 - should be worth a read.

Regards
Phil
rritchie71
Committee
Committee
Posts: 896
Joined: 27 Jan 2010 12:59
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: HMAS Adelaide (LHD), USS Roosevelt, USS Anzio, RFS Peter the Great, Scharnhorst, HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney (AWD), ITS Carlo Bergamini, HNLMS Evertsen, HMS Middelton, HMS Severn, RFS Arkangelsk, Fairplay 30, Normand Master, Fure West

Re: LPD to CVS?

Post by rritchie71 »

Ah the press, they have to try make a beat up of something,
Now if he wanted to be accurate, maybe he could have said
"The ADF has said repeatedly that putting JSFs on to the landing ships was not being considered", …… because it is politically incorrect for an Admiral to go against the government of the day.

Operating the JSF’s from them would require extensive modifications..... This depends on how you want to use them.

If you mean to be able to fly intense sustained operations for weeks on end in a ‘power projection’ role, like a dedicated built from the ground up carrier, then yes he would be correct.

Canberra and Adelaide are primary amphibious ships and lack the fuel bunkers and storage to conduct these sustained intense flight operations for weeks on end. We bought a light carrier design that can fill a ‘sea control’ capability, essentially the same as the U.S. Wasp class, Italian Cavour or Invincible class, as already stated by Mike etc, and what the journalist seems to have left right out of the article, the Juan Carlos.

In the Falkland’s war the Invincible sustained intense operations for short periods with harriers to support troops and protecting the fleet in air defense, alternating with Hermes, she punched well above her weight. As did the Wasp class off Libya in 2011, to the point (as it was a medium intensity operation) the U.S. could get away with not sending in a Nimitz carrier, this is the capability we built.
It should also be noted that either role, amphib or carrier would be intensive and the ships could only probably do one role at a time effectively.

The inherent Harrier/F-35 light carrier capability remains dormant in the ship to fulfill this role; the mods are not great, it would need radars etc.

Robert
Attachments
Juan Carlos I L61 04.jpg
User avatar
RussF172
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: 08 Feb 2010 08:53
Fleet Base: Hunter Central
My Ship Yard: USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG-81)
HMAS HOBART (DDGH-39)
HMAS CANBERRA (LHD-02)
HMAS ADELAIDE (FFG-01 - 1990)
HMAS HUNTER (FFG-???)
HMAS ARUNTA (FFH-151)
HMAS BRISBANE (DDG-41) Perth Class Post Mod.
WRS RUSHCUTTER (A-51) Weapon Recovery/Training/Drone launch ship
Location: Uralla, NSW
Contact:

Re: LPD to CVS?

Post by RussF172 »

I've had he same argument with several ex Navy types on a couple of FB forums as they keep insisting that CANBERRA cannot operate VSTOL aircraft because of structural differences to JUAN CARLOS. As Mike has already stated, CANBERRA and ADELAIDE are structurally no different to their Spanish sister. I have the plans for the internals which they gave me when I did the builders models for BAE and it has aircraft equipment handling rooms, air to air missile magazines, magazine lifts etc etc. The flight deck is no different and now the deck is painted, she has the centre roll line for VSTOL aircraft down the centre of the flight deck. A lot of people that are so called "experts" have been very well misinformed!!!
rritchie71
Committee
Committee
Posts: 896
Joined: 27 Jan 2010 12:59
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: HMAS Adelaide (LHD), USS Roosevelt, USS Anzio, RFS Peter the Great, Scharnhorst, HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney (AWD), ITS Carlo Bergamini, HNLMS Evertsen, HMS Middelton, HMS Severn, RFS Arkangelsk, Fairplay 30, Normand Master, Fure West

Re: LPD to CVS?

Post by rritchie71 »

Whilst we will only have two so it will not be always possible, i.e. when one of the ships in in maintenance, there is every chance they are looking at the U.S. strategy.

The U.S. for a number of years on occasions has been sending two Wasp class out together, one has no harriers and is pure amphibious assault, i.e. helo’s, troops and tanks. The second is used as a harrier carrier, she carriers a few seahawk for utility work and the rest is all harriers, they don’t modify the ships, they just use the inherent design as a light carrier. In Libya the Wasp class not only supported the troops, they played a major part in enforcing the no-fly zone (anti-air). It’s not overly advertised, but the U.S. a while ago converted a decent amount of its Harriers to the Air-Air role, this way they can fight without a Nimitz, whilst the air-ground harrier still support the marines.

Juan Carlos in amphibious mode carries 8 harriers, and up to 30 as a light carrier, supposedly this will reduce to 24 F-35’s.

Now 8 F-35’s are not going to have a great impact, no matter the capability, it just not enough planes in a medium or high hostile environment to make a difference. But one of them as a light carrier with 24 F-35’s onboard, well that’s an entirely different story and it is why the U.S. have adopted this strategy.

It’s really not a technical issue about the capability of the Canberra or Adelaide. The question is political; do we really want that capability? I.e. will having a light carrier make us more likely to fight, so we end up using our brawn instead of our brains.

I’ don’t know which is right or wrong, or even if there is a right of wrong, but history has proved one thing, over and over, the greater your military capability, the more willing you are to go to war.

Robert
Attachments
USS Bataan as a Harrier Carrier
USS Bataan as a Harrier Carrier
User avatar
RussF172
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: 08 Feb 2010 08:53
Fleet Base: Hunter Central
My Ship Yard: USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG-81)
HMAS HOBART (DDGH-39)
HMAS CANBERRA (LHD-02)
HMAS ADELAIDE (FFG-01 - 1990)
HMAS HUNTER (FFG-???)
HMAS ARUNTA (FFH-151)
HMAS BRISBANE (DDG-41) Perth Class Post Mod.
WRS RUSHCUTTER (A-51) Weapon Recovery/Training/Drone launch ship
Location: Uralla, NSW
Contact:

Re: LPD to CVS?

Post by RussF172 »

Thanks for that input Robert. Yes in fact the USN has adopted that force structure and now building and commissioning LHA (modified Wasp class) USS AMERICA that is purely Air capable. She has no well deck. She is purely aviation only. I don't think we need to go that far, but having one as aviation centric and one amphib centric and being able to swap them around when needed makes some sense. I'm planning on building some F-35Bs to go on (detachable) CANBERRA when done.
rritchie71
Committee
Committee
Posts: 896
Joined: 27 Jan 2010 12:59
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: HMAS Adelaide (LHD), USS Roosevelt, USS Anzio, RFS Peter the Great, Scharnhorst, HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney (AWD), ITS Carlo Bergamini, HNLMS Evertsen, HMS Middelton, HMS Severn, RFS Arkangelsk, Fairplay 30, Normand Master, Fure West

Re: LPD to CVS?

Post by rritchie71 »

Any interesting comparison of the worlds fixed wing fighter aircraft capable flat tops. Note HMS Ocean is listed, she can actually launch harriers and recover them if needed, but the lack of a ski ramp for launching severely limits the load the aircraft can take off with.
Attachments
carrier comparision.jpg
littoralcombat
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 485
Joined: 11 Sep 2013 15:30
Fleet Base: Perth
My Ship Yard: Building HMS Leeds Castle P258, HMS Bristol D23, HMS Broadsword F88, Forward Planning for HMS Invincible R05
Location: Secret Harbour, WA

Re: LPD to CVS?

Post by littoralcombat »

I've never understood the USN decision not to have Ski-Jumps on their large deck Amphibs to launch the Harriers with greater payload/fuel saving (endurance increase). Anybody know the thinking behind it?
I can see that they would lose one, maybe two Helo spots but apart from that................?
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 4935
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: LPD to CVS?

Post by MikeJames »

The US Navy rationale is that the big amphib's job is to deliver troops on shore, in the maximum possible numbers as quickly as possible. To 'get there firstest with the mostest' as some US General described it back during WW2.

Reducing the number of helo spots gets in the way of that overwhelming imperative.

Sure, adding a ski jump might make the Harriers more effective, but normally they are operating as bomb trucks, supporting the troops not too far inshore until a field can be prepared ashore, at which time the Harriers will move to their new base.

Besides, in US Navy doctrine, the carriers are there to provide air defence, leaving the Marine Harriers and eventually F35s to do the air to mud work.

Mike
Post Reply