Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

[spazsinbad]

The smaller all black F-35 shapes are showing the wing tips.

[spazsinbad]

F-35B JSF for the ADF—a viable option in the 2015 White Paper? (Part 1) 28 May 2014 Malcolm Davis

“...It’s the defence of Australia principal task, which includes ensuring control of Australia’s air and maritime approaches that seems more relevant to any decision to purchase the F-35B. The 2013 Defence White Paper reinforced the importance of controlling Australia’s sea and air approaches. That requires a ‘credible force with effective capabilities for sea and air control and denial, strike and power projection’, according to the white paper, and operational demands might require the ADF to operate well beyond the combat radius of the land-based F-35A JSF. In such a scenario, a Joint Task Force would be completely dependent on the naval surface combatant’s area air defence capabilities to counter air and missile threats.

In considering acquiring the F-35B, the Joint Task Force would have an added layer of air defence, and the aircraft would provide options for the Joint Task Force Commander in terms of antiship and land-strike, as well as reconnaissance. In addition, such a capability could also support operations under Principal Tasks Three & Four as part of a coalition. But it’s also im-portant to frame any debate over whether the F-35B could be a viable option for the ADF in the future by realistically considering the operational environment in which the F-35B will undertake operations....”

Source: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35b- ... er-part-1/

F-35B JSF for the ADF—a viable option in the 2015 White Paper? (Part 2) 30 May 2014 Malcolm Davis

"...it’s becoming clear that China’s rapid military modernisation, its assertive behavior in the East and South China Sea, and the growing regional security dilemmas emerging in the form of regional military modernisation, will increase the risk of conflict in the future. In that future, the risk must be that Australia will be drawn into a regional conflict involving the United States and China.

In that scenario it’s likely that US military forces would have access to Australian military facilities in the north and west. It also seems plausible that the ADF, working alongside US air and naval forces, would be required to respond to Chinese attempts to deny US forces a sanctuary in Australia from which to conduct operations against China. That could involve Chinese forces seeking to contest Australian air and sea approaches, and launch attacks on US forces operating from Australian facilities. Based on language in the 2013 White Paper, the ADF’s response to such a challenge would be to ‘...deter attacks or coercion against Australia by demonstrating our capability to impose prohibitive costs on potential aggressors and deny them the ability to control our maritime approaches'. Furthermore, the ADF might also ‘...undertake operations against adversary’s bases and forces in transit, as far from Australia as possible. ...using strike capabilities and the sustained projection of power by joint task forces, including amphibious operations in some circumstances'....

...It’s in countering the advantages bestowed by strategic geography on an adversary practising anti-access operations where a small force of F-35Bs deployed on LHDs might play a significant role. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s key advantages are purported to be stealth, integrated avionics and an ability to network with off-board sensors—all of which contribute to the pilot in the F-35 having an information advantage over an opponent, whether that opponent is in the air, on land or on the sea. If the F-35B is seen as a key node in an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) network that contributes towards an expeditionary force gaining a knowledge advantage at the tactical level, then a force of F-35Bs on board LHDs will add to the joint task force survivability. Information gathered by the sensor systems can be exploited by the F-35B to attack detected targets, or the F-35B can act as a sensor in a ‘sensor to shooter’ link, with the ‘shooter’ being a naval vessel or a submarine. Furthermore, the F-35B can exploit austere bases on land—known as forward arming and refuelling points (FARPs)—to operate in support of naval task forces in archipelagic waters, thus easing operational challenges and risks for the LHDs....

...Only a small number could be carried onboard the LHDs, and at the expense of other important capabilities. But an F-35B acquisition could offer the ADF a more flexible way to undertake the Principal Tasks, even in the face of growing threats from an adversary’s anti-access ability."

Malcolm Davis is assistant professor in International Relations and post-doctoral research fellow in China-Western Relations at Bond University.

Source: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35b- ... er-part-2/

MAP: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/ta ... cision.pdf (2Mb)

[popcorn]

Some good points IMO by Prof. Davis but it warrants a dedicated aviation ship so as not to detract from the LHDs primary roles/taskings. Lilypadding is clearly a short-term arrangement., Something, perhaps, like a scaled down LHA-6 that could be optimized for the efficient operation of a sufficient number of STOVL jets.

[spazsinbad]

I think the good PROF is on a good track with the excerpts quoted above. Still early days though on any public info on how any Oz F-35Bs will be used and be useful. Here are some clues from the Navantia people - bear in mind please that our RAN has only two missions in mind and the 'aircraft carrier' is not one of them at moment. I am told and have been told on this thread ad nauseam that this means our LHDs have been internally modified to disallow some of the things the Spanith Navy can do with their LHD as described below (with an interesting insight into the 'sky jump' [referred to as this in illustrations therein] additional usefulness).

Navantia | Strategic Projection Ship | LHD “Juan Carlos I” Spanish Navy
"...The “JUAN CARLOS I” is a single hull ship made of steel with the superstructure on the starboard side. Her design is based on a combination of military and commercial standards and specifications; the structure, equipment and materials follow Lloyd’s Register of Shipping’s civil standards, whilst her combat system, ordnance handling and stowage systems, systems of supply at sea, flight deck and the damage control system follow military standards.

The ship as being designed with four mission profiles:

AMPHIBIOUS SHIP: Capable of transporting a Marine Infantry Force to carry out landing , supporting operations on land.

FORCE PROJECTION SHIP: Transporting forces of any army to a theatre of operations.

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.).

HUMANITARIAN AID OPERATIONS SHIP: NON-WAR operations, humanitarian assistance, evacuation of crisis areas, hospital ship in areas affected by natural disaster, etc.

...For its part, the runway has a 12° gradient or ski-jump afore to facilitate the takeoff of STOVL and to improve the loading capacity of fuel and weaponry....

...The flight deck has been designed to operate, launch, receive and provide support, both day and night, to planes
and helicopters such as the third Squadron’s AB-212, the fifth Squadron’s SH-3D, and the ninth Squadron’s AV-8B Harrier II Plus. As well as the aircraft in service with the Navy, the ship is able to receive the Army’s CH-47 Chinook, Eurocopter Cougar and Tiger as well as the NH-90 when it enters into service with the Navy and with the Spanish Army.

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 and 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 capacity of the hangar is variable depending on the mission profile. This means an area of 1,000 m2 would be available for an amphibious type profile. This surface area could be increased by a further 2,046 m2, using the upper garage to have greater capacity for the aircraft. This means the hangar would reach 3,000 m2 for an aircraft carrier type profile. 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 ... ingles.pdf (2.3Mb)

Frickin' Spanith URLs = BAhHUMbug

[popcorn]

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.

Source: http://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfil ... pr/folleto LHD_marzo_para navantia_ingles.pdf (2.3Mb)

[/quote]

AFAIK, that's an amazingly long period of time to operate without replenishment. Perhaps due to a slower tempo of flight ops factoring in the requisite siesta ..?

[spazsinbad]

This is the secret - I reckon the Spanith LHD can dramatically increase JET FUEL capacity as required. This is a frickin' big VOLUME ship indeed.

[weasel1962]

Not forgetting HMAS Success (II) & Sirius (330k gal & 1448k gal of aviation fuel respectively). With an F-35B internal fuel load of 2,160 gal, that's 160+670 more sorties at max fuel. Success can carry 250 tons of munitions with a 2 ton capacity crane (almost 2000 SDBs or some combination), sirius maybe more. Both vessels are probably due for replacement next decade and will provide yet another opportunity to relook at requirements.

[popcorn]

This is the secret - I reckon the Spanith LHD can dramatically increase JET FUEL capacity as required. This is a frickin' big VOLUME ship indeed.

Hmmmm..,I wonder? I prefer turning water into wine, or better still, beer but jet fuel is a neat trick also. No more tankers, just a refinery ship sailing alongside. One of the fringe benefits of dumping all that CO2 into the environment.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/ ... r-jet-fue/

[spazsinbad]

Yeah that is a good story for the future - sea water into AvFuel - cool. This is where another story about our ADF going to green fuel - same as US Forces - carries a lot of weight these days. This means we will be able to use US Fuel where ever it is found in that future. Cool again. Max Points ADF. And of course the USers can use our future green fuel when they have their future green fuel requirements near our assets. Do youse need a link to that story?

[weasel1962]

Yeah that is a good story for the future - sea water into AvFuel - cool. This is where another story about our ADF going to green fuel - same as US Forces - carries a lot of weight these days. This means we will be able to use US Fuel where ever it is found in that future. Cool again. Max Points ADF. And of course the USers can use our future green fuel when they have their future green fuel requirements near our assets. Do youse need a link to that story?

Wait until they commercialise it (not the first military innovation that gets commercialised). That's going to be way bigger impact than LHD ops.

[popcorn]

Yeah that is a good story for the future - sea water into AvFuel - cool. This is where another story about our ADF going to green fuel - same as US Forces - carries a lot of weight these days. This means we will be able to use US Fuel where ever it is found in that future. Cool again. Max Points ADF. And of course the USers can use our future green fuel when they have their future green fuel requirements near our assets. Do youse need a link to that story?

Please..

[spazsinbad]

There are a few news items out there - this is just one in the naked city of the interstitialtroubles....

Royal Australian Navy stumps for biofuels to remain compatible with US 26 May 2014 Meghan Sapp

"In Australia, the Royal Australian Navy plans to run up to 50 vessels in its fleet on 50/50 biofuels by 2020 to remain compatible with the US Navy for joint training exercises, despite the government recently pulling back on excise tax rebates for road transport biofuels. In 2016, the RAN will send a biofuel-powered helicopter and frigate to participate in the US’s “Great Green Fleet” demonstration."

Source: http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2 ... e-with-us/

[spazsinbad]

Some SOBRE advice from the Gents re F-35Bs on LHDs....

Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink 03 Jun 2014 David Wroe

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott's order to examine turning the navy's amphibious assault ships into aircraft carriers for jump jets will require a major rethink by Defence, top military brass have indicated.

Facing a Senate hearing on Monday, Defence chiefs said little work had so far been done on the possibility of buying a short take-off and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter - an idea that has seized the interest of the Prime Minister....

...Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown said the force had not asked for the F-35B but added the idea should be examined along with all other credible options.

"Like all things when you have a new White Paper, you should always examine all sorts of options ... It wasn't something the air force has particularly pushed," he said.

He said significant changes would be needed for the LHD ships to accommodate up to 12 of the fighters

"One of the big issues with having fixed-wing aeroplanes come back onto a ship is you've actually got to get them back in poor weather, so there would be new radars required on the ship as well as instrument landing systems, so there'd be some extensive modifications around that."

Chief of Navy, Vice-Admiral Ray Griggs, said further modifications to the ship would include making the deck heat resistant, and changes to fuel storage and fuel lines, weapons magazines and classified compartments for storage.

"This has been a fairly superficial examination up until now because there hasn't been a serious consideration of this capability going into the ship."

Chief of the Defence Force, General David Hurley, said it was too early even to say how the F-35B would fit into the Australian Defence Force.

Much work was needed to decide even how useful they would be, how much they would cost and what sacrifices would be needed to buy them...."

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 39gl0.html

[popcorn]

One gets the impression the Defense Staff would rather the whole issue go away as it is a distraction at the very least and has the potential to disrupt ongoing plans and programs. Haste makes waste and the idea merits a serious study, perhaps best left to some future White Paper.

[lookieloo]

One gets the impression the Defense Staff would rather the whole issue go away as it is a distraction at the very least and has the potential to disrupt ongoing plans and programs. Haste makes waste and the idea merits a serious study, perhaps best left to some future White Paper.

Agreed. Given past discussions on the topic, I'm rather surprised at the sudden interest in putting F-35Bs on-board; but I suppose China's recent assertiveness has Pacific-Rim politicians casting about for ways to demonstrate resolve. Carriers do that very well and I hope Oz can follow through, but it would behoove Abbott to remember that 12 Bees aren't gonna make near so-much difference in a real war as 12 SSKs. Study the idea carefully and keep priorities straight; it might still be best to stick with the original plan... for the time being anyways.