Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 11 Jul 2015, 18:09

I didn't think there were ever plans for those Aussie ships to deploy the F-35B. I thought the only reason the ramps are there is because they'd have had to pay money for the redesign to remove them.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 11 Jul 2015, 19:42

optimist wrote:I know you like the idea of f-35b's.

which one are you referring too? Both are bar talk.
abbott having an irrational thought bubble?
or
early 2000's gov was told no f-35b's on 2 x LHD, when it was asked about, because the ramp was kept. and why don't we get some B's then? leaving the ramp on didn't lose a front spot because of fire fighting requirements and it would need redesign to take it off. cheaper to leave on. The only negative I've heard is swirling winds from the ramp.
If we go anywhere dangerous, it will be under a USA coalition umbrella. I was told the same applies to the french flat top and it needs coalition support. So we would need significant assets to go anywhere by ourselves.
ADF told our Gov they need another flat top, support ships and assets for fixed wing (and a lot more money) As you would know from your time in the RAN, It really is a different ball game.

It is not whether I like the idea of F-35Bs - it is whether or not they may be found useful on our LHDs. Now that is an idea I have to like. Otherwise if there is no use for them then that is that. However over the several years this thread has been running I have found my concept of what is perhaps required has changed somewhat - to be realistic - rather than just demanding something that probably only a dedicated carrier (albeit jumpjetski carrier) can provide. And I'm not referring to that at all.

My concept would be to have a small replication of the USMC model - when and if required. I'm not saying emulate the USMC but to be realistic the ARMY and RAAF must agree that having RAAF F-35Bs ashore most of the time will be useful. IF not then my idea is dead. IF there is interest then this small quantity of RAAF F-35Bs can from time to time embark on an LHD for fleet defence and then disembark when near shore to join the other RAAF assets in their endeavours with the ARMY. Yeah complicated I know and probably too much 'out of the box thinking' to make it into the BULLSHIT RAAF Plan Jericho. What a frickin' JOKE. But I'm sanguine. Actually I'm pleased that the PM/DefMin brought up the concept to be looked at again when the assets are more developed. And this concept will be looked at again - the ships / aircraft will be in service for many years from now.

Whatever the US promises I don't buy that at all. I don't even buy what the RAAF promises about 'Fleet Defence'. They fail to deliver. All I can hope for these days is that they deliver. CRABS like to sh*t on everyone - just as long as they sh*t on themselves (fail to deliver) then the F-35Bs on LHDs for Fleet Defence concept will come around again. So RAAF deliver.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 11 Jul 2015, 19:50

sferrin wrote:I didn't think there were ever plans for those Aussie ships to deploy the F-35B. I thought the only reason the ramps are there is because they'd have had to pay money for the redesign to remove them.

I guess you have not followed this thread. Your last sentence is correct. And even your first sentence is correct but then we would have to define what 'plans' means. If 'plan' is defined as 'official public plan' then all your two sentences are correct. However it is clear over the long gestation of first of all selecting the LHD and then having them built and recently almost two delivered, the concept/idea (and non-public unofficial plans) for F-35Bs on our LHDs has been around, in the PLAN drawers and whatever other device holds 'plans'.

I could make a small PDF to demonstrate the longevity of the idea but then I would also have to find the old 'plan' references that were made public - that may be difficult after all this time - however I have one or two. Note I'm not referring to any ADF restricted/not public/ plan but those made available to me - JohnQpublic.

These articles would be on this thread I'll imagine - however I have not checked.

Navy keeps very quiet while it waits for the last laugh
04 Aug 2007 SMH

"WHEN Brendan Nelson announced last month a $3 billion order for two giant amphibious landing ships, it was widely seen as a victory for the "expeditionary force" school of strategy, emphasising overseas punch for the Australian Army....

...The navy might also have the last laugh. The new ships are actually its path back to acquiring the capability it lost with the retirement of the carrier HMAS Melbourne in 1982: its own fixed-wing strike aircraft operating off its own carriers.

The two ships, of the Juan Carlos I design for the Spanish Navy, will have a "ski-jump" ramp for vertical and short take-off and landing jets, and be able to carry at least six such aircraft.

The aircraft could be the Harrier jump-jet strike fighter long in service with the British Navy, the US Marine Corps and the Spanish Navy, or the projected V/STOL variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in which Australia has invested as the next generation supersonic, stealth mainstay of the air force.

The Spanish shipyard Navantia, which will build the two navy ships with the Melbourne-based group Tenix, has made much of this capability, and Canberra defence insiders say the navy was well aware of this when the Government was persuaded to opt for the ships over the smaller French rival.

"There's a lot of chuckling behind the sleeves," said Derek Woolner, an expert on defence technology at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. "The joke around is Navy's being very, very careful. They've got almost total discipline: no one in Navy is saying anything about Harriers."

Woolner expects the subject to come up once the air force starts getting its new F-35 aircraft.

"They'll say how about buying some V/STOL versions, they'll be really cheap because we can get the maintenance and support done out of the RAAF fleet, they wouldn't be like a little orphan fleet, we'd only need a few, and gee, it would add so much to our power projection.

"People are fully aware of it, it's just that the politics of the thing are such that Navy is shutting up," Woolner said....

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/navy-k ... 56129.html

Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list
25 Mar 2008 News.Com.au

"THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier, an extra air warfare destroyer and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet.

The RAN wants a third 26,000 tonne amphibious ship equipped with vertical take-off jet fighters, a fourth $2 billion air warfare destroyer and cruise missiles that could strike targets thousands of kilometres away....

...The RAN wants a third ship to carry vertical [what an Fwit!] take-off fighter jets...."

Source: http://www.news.com.au/national/aircraf ... 1115876869

Historic boost in capability for the ADF
Dec 2009/Jan 2010 APDR Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter

"...It is reported the Royal Australian Navy would like to have some STOVL F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Aircraft embarked in the Canberras, as with the BPE, but the government has not approved this and given the rising cost of the F-35 this capability does seem even more unlikely in Australian ships...."

Source: http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.c ... 8AXd8oG4Aw (PDF)

CARRIER-BORNE CLOSE AIR SUPPORT Historical and Contemporary perspectives
CMDR David Hobbs MBE, RN (Rtd) The NAVY Vol 72 No 4 Special Oct-Dec 2010

“...Historically, air forces have shown themselves to be the least joint of armed forces, the least adaptive to other people’s ideas and formed on the unsubstantiated political assumption that all future wars would be fought by them, making navies and armies obsolete. Experience shows the need for successful integration of ‘air’ into naval and military operations and questions the need for a third service to support the other two without fully comprehending their needs. The transfer of battlefield support helicopters from the RAAF to the Army Air Corps was a wise move that supports this view. The choice of future aircraft put forward by the RAAF is questionable and demonstrably follows an independent line. The LHDs are being built to a Spanish design with a ski-jump and their Spanish sister-ships are intended to operate the F-35B, STOVL, version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), itself designed to meet a US Marine Corps requirement to operate as CAS aircraft from US Navy LHDs. The RAAF wants ‘up to’ 100 JSF; to an outsider this offers a straightforward solution since the Australian Defence Force is buying the big deck ships and the CAS aircraft to operate from them. This is not the case since the RAAF insists on procuring the F-35A version of the JSF, designed for the US Air Force and incapable of operation from a carrier or providing support for a distant expeditionary operation. It is not clear why the Australian Government is considering buying an aircraft with such limited potential when it could get so much more for its money by taking a wider view. Air Force politicians will point out that airborne tankers and transport aircraft could relocate maintenance personnel, spare parts and ammunition to a ‘friendly’ air base near the scene of the action. As with the Hunters in Kuwait, however, this would buy up much of the tanker/transport force and prevent it from carrying out other tasks which would no doubt be given lower priority; an inward-looking RAAF view rather than working with others to achieve the best result in the national interest.

There are major issues with the cost of the JSF programme and the high cost of individual aircraft and the unknown cost of their support may deter many nations, including Australia, from buying it in the numbers they originally intended or at all. This is another area that has not yet been debated and deserves to be. The phenomenon of expensive front line aircraft is not new....”

Source: http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/upl ... t-2010.pdf

F-35Bs Crawl, Walk, Run to Transformation
27 Jun 2014 Marc V. Schanz

"The F-35B strike fighter is a “transformational” capability, on par with how the MV-22 tiltrotor platform revolutionized expeditionary operations, Lt. Gen. Kenneth Glueck, head of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, told reporters on Thursday. But some of its capabilities will take years to perfect, he said. “I would say we are in the crawl stage on that,” said Glueck when asked about the maturity of data links and systems to disseminate the jet’s electronics and command and control capabilities. The F-35B is “transformational because of what it does,” he said. “It is a battlefield integrator,” and when its systems mature, it will be able to deliver information about the overall picture of a conflict down to marines and troops on the ground [and RAN ships/LHDs], he said. The F-35B will eventually replace three aircraft across the Marine Corps: the F/A-18, EA-6B, and AV-8B, said Glueck. “It will be a disruptive technology in the beginning,” he said. “It’s going to take a while to realize what we need on the ground to take full advantage of all the capabilities,” he added."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... ation.aspx

Johnston raises possibility of acquiring F-35Bs
19 May 2014 australianaviation.com.au

“Defence Minister Senator David Johnston has again raised the possibility of Australia acquiring a number of Lockheed Martin F-35B short take off & vertical landing (STOVL) versions of the Joint Strike Fighter for operation from the RAN’s new Canberra class LHD vessels.

Speaking to The Weekend West on May 17, Senator Johnston said the acquisition of the F-35B was “an option which has been considered from day one.” His comments echo those he made to an ASPI dinner in October 2012 where he described the LHDs as “…STOVL capable.”

Defence officials have consistently tried to pour cold water on the possibility of Australia buying F-35Bs over the years, despite its commonality with the conventional takeoff F-35A version of which the RAAF is acquiring 72 examples.

The Canberra class LHDs are being built optimised for amphibious operations using water craft and helicopters, and do not have sufficient fuel and weapons bunkerage to operate F-35Bs without a considerable upgrade in the RAN’s support ship fleet. Further, & while the possibility of cross-decking with F-35Bs of the USMC, the UK and other partner nations exists and will likely be encouraged, the LHDs do not have the thermion heat-resistant deck coating required to accommodate the F-35B’s exhaust for extended operations...."

Source: http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... ng-f-35bs/

White Paper to consider F-35Bs for LHDs – report
23 May 2014 australianaviation.com.au

“Prime Minister Tony Abbott has instructed the authors of the new Defence White Paper currently in preparation to consider the acquisition of the STOVL F-35B variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to operate from the Navy’s forthcoming LHD amphibious 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 takeoff and vertical landing version of the JSFs — the F-35B — on to the ships,” a report in The Australian newspaper on Friday says.

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister contacted by the newspaper did not confirm or deny the suggestion the F-35B would be considered as part of the White Paper process, only noting that the White Paper’s Force Structure Review would: “examine a range of capabilities & will provide the government with options to ensure Australia maintains a sustainable, versatile and highly capable defence force in coming decades”.

However, on April 23 when Prime Minister Abbott announced the decision to acquire a further 58 F-35As for the RAAF to take the total buy to 72, he made passing reference to the fact that the F-35 variant slated to be acquired for a final batch of up to 28 jets (to replace the Super Hornet) some time next decade had not yet been determined.

“We are certainly retaining the option to purchase an additional squadron – a further 18 Joint Strike Fighters and we haven’t decided precisely what type it might be – that will be something that will be looked at in the context of the coming Defence White Paper,” the PM said. While at the time RAAF officials explained to Australian Aviation that the figure of 18 aircraft was a slip of the tongue and should have been 28 jets, but the comment about “what type it might be” went largely unnoticed at the time.

But the question of F-35Bs being acquired for the ADF was subsequently flagged by Defence Minister David Johnston in an interview with The Weekend West on May 17, where he said the acquisition of the F-35B was “an option which has been considered from day one.”"

Source: http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/0 ... ds-report/

Navantia | Strategic Projection Ship | LHD “Juan Carlos I”

"...AIRCRAFT CARRIER: A temporary platform for carrier-based naval aircraft, acting as a flight deck for strategic projection airborne vectors (Navy’s Air Wing), capable of becoming a temporary platform to substitute the aircraft-carrier, “PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS”, when she is not available due to downtime (repairs, modifications, etc.)...

..In a significant qualitative leap, this ship is also designed to operate with the STOVL version of the JSF, the F-35B Lightning II, if the Spanish Navy decides to acquire this exceptional plane. A touchdown point has also been reserved astern of the flight deck that is specially adapted (in dimensions & resistance) for the special needs of the new V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

For the transfer of aircraft between the hanger and the flight deck, the Juan Carlos I has two elevators, each with a capacity of 25 tonnes and sufficient size to be able to carry up to the new F-35B Lightning II, or a helicopter the size of a Chinook....

...The hanger itself, situated further astern, can house up to 12 medium-sized helicopters. In the case of the LHD operating as a temporary aircraft carrier, the vehicles and material would be substituted by between 10 and 12 STOVL planes, as well as the dozen helicopters previously mentioned. In order to provide support for airborne operations, it is estimated that the ship has sufficient fuel, spare parts and arms so that the embarked aircraft could carry out their operations without the ship needing replenishment for up to a maximum of 50 days.

The planned airborne capacity is for her to transport and operate up to 30 aircraft including medium-sized and heavy helicopters in amphibious operation profiles, or between 10 and 12 F-35B planes or AV-8B+, plus a similar number of medium-sized helicopters when acting with an aircraft carrier mission profile at times when the Príncipe de Asturias R-11 is not operational....”

Source: http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfil ... pr/folleto LHD_marzo_para navantia_ingles.pdf

Plan Jericho - Introducing 5th Generation Capability
July 2014 ADM Magazine Nigel Pittaway

“...A STOVL F-358 for Air Force?
CAF also revealed that Air Force is currently studying the potential operations of a short take off vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B from the decks of Navy's new Landing Helicopter Dock ships.

The Abbott government is reportedly interested in expanding the LHD role by the addition of combat jets and analysis is now being undertaken to determine what will be required. Air Force has previously (and repeatedly) said that the F-35B was not under consideration and that modelling showed the LHDs could be adequately protected by shore-based F-35As. [THIS NEEDS TO BE DEMONSTRATED and NOT HAND WAVED AWAY - CRABS BEWARE - WEEZwatchin']

"Any idea is worth a look at, because the situation changes, circumstances change. STOVLs have their place, they are a more expensive aeroplane, they have a lot less range and they don't have the weapons capability," he noted.

"It depends on how you see the LHD. If you want to convert it to take STOVL, there are a lot of considerations that you have to take into account and JSF/STOVL by itself isn't a capability. It needs weapons and it needs fuel. [DOH]

"And I think that if you go and look at the changes you have to put in place to operate STOVL off an LHD you will see that it's got its challenges. That's what we'll work through over the next few months is to articulate what those challenges are, what additional cost, if that's the way we decide we want to go.” [F ya Frickin' Challenges eh - LIFE IS A CHALLENGE]

Source: ADM Magazine July 2014

Williams Foundation Dinner “The F-35 in ADF Service”
29 May 2014 Chief of Air Force: Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO

"...I hasten to add here, it isn’t a single service issue. We’ll work very closely with Army and Navy on how we transform, because that superior situational awareness is not only for the guy in the cockpit of the F-35; it’s for the combat team in the AWD or the Anzac frigate [AND THE LHD DUMBO!], and it should also be for the combat team on the ground...."

Source: PROLLY at the WillyFoundersWebsite

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 11 Jul 2015, 20:46

This last quote should probably go on the 'other' thread (lookin at the numbers again) but it goes here to remind us of the 'transformation' the F-35B brings (to the USMC) in a scaled down way for 'fleet defence' from our LHDs as required. And again I stress I'm not suggesting the RAN/ARMY emulate the role of the USMC - however the RAN/ARMY do need to get where they need to go and inbetween Oz and there FLEET DEFENCE is required and as youse know I have not faith in crabs.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOSEPH DUNFORD COMMANDANT UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
26 FEB 2015 Gen. Dunford USMC

“...Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) [F-35B/C] pp14-16
Our tried and true F/A-18s, AV-8Bs and EA-6B Prowlers have performed magnificently in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing our Marine riflemen the fires they needed, in every clime and place from sea bases large and small, and expeditionary bases ashore. With the help of Congress, we have kept these aircraft as modern as possible and extracted every ounce of readiness we can from them; however, the high operational tempo has pushed these aircraft to more rapidly approach the end of their service lives. Due to the uncertainty prevalent in today’s global security environment, the Nation requires we maintain a capability to respond quickly in contested regions regardless of weather conditions. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, as part of the MAGTF, meets the Nation’s needs.

The Marine Corps remains committed to the recapitalization of our aging TACAIR fleet through the procurement of the F-35. The JSF brings a new capability to the battalion sized forces that sail with our Marine Expeditionary Units. Today, there are a multitude of high risk regions where a crisis response operation would require large Joint strike packages to soften or blind the threat. These packages would have to include cruise missiles, fighter aircraft, electronic warfare platforms, aircraft which specialize in suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses, and strike aircraft - just for U.S. forces to gain access. Such strike packages require coordination across services and combatant commands and take weeks and months to assemble. This same kind of access can be attained with a single detachment of 4 to 8 F-35s - the same sized detachment which will reside with a Marine Expeditionary Unit. For major contingencies, a surge of F-35Bs to our amphibious carrier decks and forward austere bases enables even greater options and striking power. The F-35 provides a transformational capability to the Marine Corps and the Joint Force. It gives our Nation a day one, full spectrum capability against the most critical and prohibitive threats.

Carriers or austere Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) and Forward Arming and Refueling Points (FARPs) ashore. This places the F-35’s transformational capabilities in the hands of the infantry Marine. The Marine rifleman is now supported immediately with close air support, electronic warfare capabilities, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support in threat and weather conditions which previously would have denied aviation support. The F-35's ability to develop, process, and display information to the pilot and disseminate it at tactical, operational, and strategic levels is what makes the platform truly unique, "a server in the sky" for the MAGTF. The sensors and communications equipment of our F-35s allow pilots and forward air controllers to see through the clouds to exchange high fidelity pictures in environments we would consider a no go today. Enhancing the C2, strike and intel capabilities of the MAGTF commander, the F-35 transforms the MAGTF into an element capable of penetrating any AOR in the world to set the conditions necessary to enable follow-on forces...."

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document_downloa ... ension=pdf

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 11 Jul 2015, 20:57

AND once more for the CRABS because they are slow learners (remember the video 'CRABS - KNOW YOUR LIMITS'?). This is what the now retired head honcho said recently - hand waving I guess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX9h5Vk1rO0

A well-balanced Air Force
02 Jul 2014 Sergei DeSilva-Ranasinghe ANI Australian Naval Institute

"...Q: In recent times, Air Force integration with the amphibious concepts has been talked about between Army and Navy: Doctrinally, to what extent will the RAAF have a role in this?

Air Marshal Brown: For the RAAF’s role in the amphibious force, air control is probably the main priority and strike is the second. Our involvement doesn’t get a lot of mention because the real issue that you have to solve is the seams between Army and Navy. For us, one of the air-control tasks is protecting a high value asset: the amphibious ship or naval task force. We will be involved in Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C), and the tankers, fighters and maritime patrol aircraft to try to keep the taskforce screened, so it can go from A to B. And, certainly, at its destination you’re looking at co-ordinating close air support or strike and maintaining air control. So, there’s no great change [YA THINK] for Air Force regarding our roles and how we fit in, it’s just that the vital point that you’re protecting is in the sea. Of course that comes with its own challenges regarding force projection and the reliance on tankers, and achieving a persistent presence at a distance for all our assets that are part air control for an amphibious force...."

Source: http://navalinstitute.com.au/a-well-balanced-air-force/

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 11 Jul 2015, 21:15

SHAMEFUL I KNOW (however I have to find this 2004 report in the mountains of info I have - so bear with) but WiB has a clue sometimes (regarding history - long ago for some) and some of the article is quite good. NOTE THE 'A FEW'.

Australia Is Getting Aircraft Carriers, Sort Of - Amphibious ships are flattops by another name
10 May 2014 NOT SURE

"... a 2004 parliamentary report on Australia’s maritime strategy explicitly argued for the government to buy a few F-35Bs along with the 100 or so land-based F-35As the island nation already planned to acquire at a cost of around $100 million apiece...."

Source: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/austra ... 4519a756ca

HERE youse go - from the wayback machine all the way to whenever....

Australia’s Maritime Strategy - ADF CAPABILITY - The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
June 2004 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

"...[Recomendo] 5.70 The Government is not required to commit to the purchase of the F-35 until 2006. The Government should give consideration to purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL)....

...Conclusions...
...5.88 In the previous conclusions, the committee suggested that if the Government, in 2006, confirms the decision to purchase the F-35, it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL). This could provide the ADF [more importantly 'LHD with ARMY' onboard] with some organic air cover while it is engaged in regional operations. It is assumed that the F-35 STOVL version will be able to meet its design specifications. The committee is aware of reports that the STOVL version is subject to weight problems....

...Recommendation 9
5.91 If in 2006 the Government confirms that it will purchase the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) then it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35 variants for the provision of organic air cover as part of regional operations...."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_bus ... report.pdf (800Kb)

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 11 Jul 2015, 21:43

Here is one example of how the SMARTER CRAB would operate - but they have to be willing to be smart and also to be fast lurners and NOT be overcome by all the newbits navalwize. :doh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX9h5Vk1rO0

‘Sea control & maritime power projection for Australia: maritime air power & air warfare’
2003 Richard T. Menhinick - University of Wollongong

‘The Aircraft Carrier Debate’ section on pp.109-122 has an overview of non-replacement for HMAS Melbourne back in the early 1980s. pp. 137 to 142 express the idea of LHDs as 'mobile bare bases'. On page 141:

“...As stated aircraft carriers for Australia could be viewed more properly in the context of mobile bare bases. They would build on the positive attributes of Australia's current fixed bare bases, but overcome the limitations of these bases, by being able to bring air power to the area of operations, should the strategic and tactical situation require it. Evolving aircraft technology permits the possibility of Australia being able to operate an air dominance aircraft from a maritime platform. Noting the seamless force statement of 'Force 2020', the RAAF could operate an air dominance and air strike combat air group from the mobile bare base exactly as it does today from land bases. The RAN does not need to re-create a fixed wing fleet air arm. The operation of air dominance aircraft in what the RAAF does already. Australia should just move the base to sea as necessary. The RAN would operate the ship, steam it to where it is required and maintain it. The RAAF could be responsible for the fixed-wing air group, including maintenance and training.

This approach builds on the UK use of RAF GR7 Harrier aircraft from the 'Invincible' class aircraft carriers off Yugoslavia. In fact between 2002 and 2006 the RN's Sea Harriers will be removed from service. This will result in the three 'Invincible' class aircraft carriers deploying solely with RAF fixed wing aircraft. As already stated the British are moving to provide a two carrier fixed wing air dominance and strike capability to permit expeditionary warfare from 2012. Australia seems not to have studied this aspect of operations. It is time to investigate this option with a view to operating either a common aircraft variant from land and mobile sea bases or even a different variant should that be the preferred and logical outcome.

There would of course be significant challenges. It is some 20 years since the RAN operated fixed wing aviation at sea. It would be a period of 30 to 35 years (2012/17) by the time Project Air 6000 platforms could be commissioned into service. To be effective at sea aircrew would need to be educated in maritime operations. This includes a basic understanding of how ships work, both at sea and in harbour. This includes issues such as standing watches, conducting damage control training, ship safety training and survival at sea. Issues such as obtaining experienced Carrier Air Group Commanders to command the air element would be taxing. The development of the 'shipside' such as the ship's Commander Air, its head of the Air Department, and the team responsible for the shipboard side of training and operations would also be demanding. The RAN and RAAF would need to build this up over the next few years, by exchange postings to overseas forces operating aircraft at sea. Given the 'Force 2020' proposals and vision this should be possible. Noting Project Air 6000's impact on Australian strategy and its very significant budget, this proposal should be investigated in a meaningful and open fashion.

The benefits that could flow from such an approach are more diverse than just the direct strategic options such a capability provides. Less obvious effects perhaps could be an increase in the retention of aircrew, with them being given better opportunities to serve in operational environments away from Australian bases than occurs at present. Other effects may include... operations free from considerations of diplomatic issues of third nation land based air operations....”

Source: http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cg ... 201990s%22

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 11 Jul 2015, 22:52

Here is a 114 page PDF with some of the bits cited about Bs on LHDs above. More comprehensive PDFs are online which will not have all the recent info :-(

but go there is youse dare: https://onedrive.live.com/?id=CBCD63D63 ... E6&group=0 OR https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... 0VEM2ZvOXM

optimist · by **optimist** » 11 Jul 2015, 22:55

I think the navy quote you put up has merit and agrees with the bar talk. (a lot more than committees and pollies saying why don't we. But it wouldn't be the first time they ignore advice and go on their merry way and buy something with a good photo op.)

"Aircraft carrier on navy's secret $4bn wish list
25 Mar 2008 News.Com.au

"THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier, an extra air warfare destroyer and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet.

The RAN wants a third 26,000 tonne amphibious ship equipped with vertical take-off jet fighters, a fourth $2 billion air warfare destroyer and cruise missiles that could strike targets thousands of kilometres away....

...The RAN wants a third ship to carry vertical [what an Fwit!] take-off fighter jets...."

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 11 Jul 2015, 23:00

Please tell us 'optimist' why anyone here is interested in 'bar talk' - perhaps when I 'cross the bar' I may be interested.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 04 Aug 2015, 15:43

Just for the heck of it "cross the bar" is Navy slang for dying and I'm doing this waiting for the frickin' DefWhiteToiletPaper 2015' dew in third week of August apparently - wow - WTF? That is midyear in OzLand? Anyways it is a lost opportunity for F-35Bs on LHDs as we know but here is the thing (for Fleet Defence mind - none of yur aircraftcrarriercrap OK?).

The Aussies Focus on Amphibious Capability: A Plan Jericho Opportunity?
04 Aug 2015 SLDinfo

"2015-08-04 This Spring, the Marine Corps hosted an amphibious conference in Hawaii which provided a first of its kind look at the evolution of amphibious capabilities in the region. 23 nations from the region joined the Marines and Navy in looking at the amphibious dynamic and discussing ways ahead within the region.

In part this is happening because of the demonstrated utility for the afloat force to provide for humanitarian assistance of simply connectivity and support in a crisis in addition to more robust approaches to military operations.

In a discussion with Brigadier General Mahoney, Deputy MARFORPAC, the emergence of what the Marines call “amphibiosity” [only the gyrenes could invent new woids such as this] within the region was a key point of discussion.

There are clear differences in the region between those who focus on an older concept of amphibious forces as transit or transportation assets and those who see a more robust role for those forces within an overall integrated force structure.

A challenge is simply the ambiguity of what amphibious means in the wake of the Osprey revolution and the coming of the F-35B.

As one Marine put aboard the USS WASP: [think this in context of 'fleet defence as explained a zillion times now']
“No one in the world has ever sent an airplane off of an amphibious ship with this level of situational awareness and fusion between aircraft to aircraft and aircraft to ship.

The fusion of the data aboard the airplanes and your ability to see what other planes are seeing a number of miles away from you, as well as what the ship is seeing, and then to be able to communicate with them without using the radio is a tactical and strategic advantage that can not really be over stated.”

And with the Osprey, now the amphibious ready group operates over a vastly increased area and is able to prosecute a wide variety of tasks over that operational area....

...They [a report mentioned in the article - go there or be square] focus on the shifts the Australian Army will need to make as well as the importance of working the joint problem as well. They make a solid case for setting up and amphibious center of excellence as well.

Clearly, C2 and aviation demands are important to resolve as well. And the C2 side will not be solved within the amphibious fleet itself and is more a joint opportunity as suggested by the RAAF approach to Plan Jericho.

The ability to link across the combat force is not about what organically is ON the amphibious ships but what those ships can connect to in the battlespace. The connectivity between the Wedgetail and the surface fleet is a key way ahead for managing the amphibious aspect as well.

And buying a Tiger helicopter without working out how to operate it onboard a ship or the same for an F-35B is not how one wants to approach the future of the amphibious ships within an integrated force.

The report really does not discuss the aviation aspect of the amphibious fleet, which for the USN-USMC team has been the most dynamic reshaper of amphibious operations, and this reshaping is really only just under way.

The Australian Army would need to look considerably more like the USMC in terms of ship ready aviation and related systems to get from here to there in 21st century operations. But given the close relationship this is a very feasible outcome.

Maritime-based helicopter support is part of but not the future of more advanced amphibious operations, and the Plan Jericho opportunity might provide a framework to shape a way ahead for the amphibious fleet in Australia."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-aussies-focu ... portunity/

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 07 Aug 2015, 15:30

It is TITillating to see how F-35Bs on Oz LHDs would facilitate the plan below - but hey dead dogs doan lie.... :mrgreen:

Plan JERICHO Program of Work Transforming Air Force's Combat Capability
27 Jul 2015 RAAF PR

"....Enhance Air Force’s Maritime Operations Capability [page 10 Plan Jericho Program of Work]
Owner: Commander Surveillance and Response Group
Commence: To be determined after consultation with the Royal Australian Navy
Complete: Within four years

Overview
Air Force’s vision is to enhance the capabilities of air and maritime platforms through effective integration and training. This project will enhance joint air and maritime operations such as maritime surveillance, maritime strike, under-sea warfare and protection of the Amphibious Task Group (ATG). Air Force will work with the Navy to develop concepts through experimentation, war-gaming and ongoing joint collective training. Some aspects of this project are already being addressed, but there is a need for a coordinated approach to capability realisation and doctrine development, and opportunities for short-term successes.

Elements to be addressed or considered
• With the air-land integration project owner, develop Air Force’s input into amphibious doctrine and TTPs.

• Develop Air Force input into broader airmaritime doctrine and TTPs.

• Ensure Air Force can contribute to the maritime operating picture in real time.

• In consultation with Director General Air Command Operations, ensure that situational awareness data is shared between air and maritime platforms at the tactical and operational level.

• Ensure Air Force capabilities can provide communications gateways or relays necessary for the surface groups to retain
information control in contested, denied operating (CDO) environments.

• In consultation with the AWC, develop professional education and training in maritime strike for operators, planners and Commanders.

• In consultation with the AWC, develop professional education and training in anti-subsurface warfare and amphibious
operations for operators, planners and Commanders.

• Transition development of Air Force maritime doctrine and TTPs to the Air Warfare Centre when it has the capacity to do so...."

...Develop an Integrated Fire Control Capability [page 16]
Owner: Commander Air Combat Group
Commence: Chief of Air Force Advisory Committee submission – 2nd Quarter 2016
Complete: Seven years

Overview
To fight and win in the future, Air Force must be capable of sharing weapons quality sensor data across airborne, surface [MARITIME? NAVY?] and land based platforms. Automated sensor crosscueing will enable collaborative detection, identification and engagement of targets at long range in a contested environment. Air Force’s integrated fire control policy will guide engagement with other services, the evolution of Air Force platforms, the acquisition of new platforms, and the development of associated doctrine and operational concepts within Air Force and across the Joint Force. Capability Management of Integrated Fire Control will be described in the Capability Management framework, along with other integrated effects. Air Force will pursue the development of integrated fire control while this Capability Management framework is matured.

Elements to be addressed or considered
• Develop a roadmap for integrated fire control.

• Develop integrated fire control capabilities across all required Force Elements (FE).

• Build networks so that sensors can detect, identify and engage targets collaboratively across all FE.

• Develop doctrine and TTPs for the use of integrated fire control across Air Force.

• Develop doctrine and TTPs for the use of integrated fire control across the Joint Force.

• Transition development of integrated fire control doctrine, TTPs and experimentation to the Air Warfare Centre...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... f-Work.pdf (6.7Mb) & http://www.sldinfo.com/plan-jericho-wor ... formation/

blindpilot · by **blindpilot** » 07 Aug 2015, 16:23

Hey Spaz,

Instead of getting that "third carrier" for Bees, I hear the Frenchies have some big ole boats sitting in docks that they would let go of for a song and a dance. Move all the army dudes onto one of those and then the Spanish ships could take on the Bees for you ... Probably be cheap all the way around... have to watch those moving targets!

Just sayin ...

BP

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 07 Aug 2015, 21:33

Heheheh gotta laugh eh. The froggies think they will have no trouble selling on these surplus Mistrals ala:

Hollande: France Will Have ‘No Difficulty’ Finding Mistral Buyers
06-07 Aug 2015 Sam LaGrone

"...Paris paid Moscow about $1.31 billion to call off the deal....

...Now France will seek a buyer for the two ships designed to operate in cold weather climates with reinforced decks for heavier Russian helicopters. [This aspect could be a problem because our last aircraft carriers were designed for the NORTH ATLANTIC which meant they had NO AIRCON which made living conditions almost unbearable in the tropics where they operated a lot on exercise as well in sub-tropical waters until a few parts of MELBOURNE were airconditioned when A4Gs onboard. But 'reinforced decks' me likee ]

“It’s desirable that we sell them as quickly as possible,” Le Drian told RTL.

France already has three Mistrals and would have difficulty absorbing the ships into its Navy.

Despite Hollande’s assurance, the options for France are limited.

Suggestions for buyers have included Canada, India and as platforms for the emerging NATO multi-national rapid reaction force."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/08/06/holland ... ral-buyers

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 08 Aug 2015, 01:38

We'll be calling the Mediterranean the 'MISTRAL SEA' soon.

Saudi Arabia keen to buy completed Mistral carriers for Egypt
08 Aug 2015 Hélène Sallon Le Monde

"French daily Le Monde reported that Saudi Arabia is keen to buy the two Mistral carriers ordered by Russia and transfer them to Egypt....

https://translate.google.com.au/transla ... edit-text=

Source: http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2 ... _3212.html

Why the UK won’t purchase the ex-Russian Mistral assault ships, even though we should
07 Aug 2015 SaveTheRoyalNavy

"There are many suggesting the RN purchase the 2 ex-Russian Mistral class assault ships from France. The ships which have excellent aviation facilities as well as a floodable dock for landing craft would make superb replacements for HMS Ocean, Albion & Bulwark. If this government understood the true value of amphibious capability, they could abandon the flawed and quite desperate plan to make the QE aircraft carriers double as assault ships and buy the Mistrals.

However, this is very unlikely to happen because:... [I'll leave you in suspenders]

3. The Mistrals are not fully compatible with RN requirements as they are fitted with Russian & French systems. They would need expensive re-fitting with RN standard equipment.... [This would be a problemo for Oz also.]

PHOTO: http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-cont ... 14x487.jpg

Source: http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/why-the ... we-should/