F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers

[weasel1962]

Should ask the Australians that. I always thought the Bs was a logical fit for the canberras.

[Smirk on] Kick that dead horse again hard!!! I swear I saw it move !!!! [smirk off]


(just saving Spaz another post),
BP

That's like saying Australia shouldn't talk about the Ashes whitewash whenever they can....(acknowledging half the world probably doesn't understand what I'm talking about)...

I think it will be awhile before the RAN ever considers this. It would have been much easier to refit the Canberras before they entered service. The next logical opportunity would be a midlife refit sometime in 2029-2030 or later so that's at least another 12 years of flogging dead horses. Can't see the RAN taking the Canberras out of service just to do an F-35B fit-out.

[mas]

It would only have been a whitewash if it had been 5-0. 4-0-1 is 'just' a usual Ashes Cricket drubbing when the Brits go down under. That draw was hard fought for to avoid the whitewash ignominy

[spazsinbad]

On previous page 'BP' said: "...Where do you get that LtCmd who landed the last plane?..." Sadly I have been in blackout city (evicted forcibly from thunderstorm city) these last three hours - so I'll be brief. Also I'm in 'this video does not play in your black/thunderycity/country with third world infrastructure' so I have to guess it is the excellent 'CARRIER' PBS doco from years ago now. The CO of the squadron who takes over from the junior tanker pilot in the rough conditions is my hero. I think he appeared recently talking about chasing UFOs in his Hornet + wingman. I can look all this up if required.

[neptune]

..Kick that dead horse again hard!!! I swear I saw it move !!!! ... Can't see the RAN taking the Canberras out of service just to do an F-35B fit-out.

....F-35B (Non-US) Pocket Carriers; has some interesting discussions that can be educational for some of us who are aware of the versatility inherent in that aircraft design.

...With the recent media attention to Japan and RoK's passing thoughts/ considerations for the "Bee" and their boats, it was interesting to see the 2018 Corp Plans indicate that "they" consider shipping out with 6-16 "Bees". So, those that see "Carrier" and are locked into 90 a/c pounding the enema; can relax and allow that others may wish to move 6 "Bees" for other than amphibious assault.

...Aussies being surrounded by islands, it may be in their military/ political/ economic interests to provide a small force to secure/ protect their maritime commerce avenues and those of their allied neighbors. Be it with Canberra "helicopter carriers" and "Bees" or other future ships and stealthy ISR aircraft, my crystal ball is a bit foggy!

...In that part of the world, others are considering similar options in their foreseeable futures.

[spazsinbad]

Probably this link belongs elsewhere but it is a mixture of ski jump and future hi tech Chinese Aircraft Carrier intentions.

China has started building its third aircraft carrier, military sources say 08 Jan 2018
http://hrana.org/news/2018/01/china-has ... urces-say/

[steve2267]

Question: Other than US LHD Wasp-class and LHA America-class which have been designed (or design modifications finalized), do all other pocket carriers or Landing Helicopter Dock vessels require modifications to operate the F-35B?

The Italians seem committed to F-35B's operating from Cavour. I have read the Cavour was designed to support F-35B, but found the following blurb on Wikipedia that Cavour apparently must be modified for the F-35B, though specific modifications are not mentioned:

The F-35B schedule is uncertain, but it is planned to modify Cavour to support the F-35B by 2016.

The Spanish have a decision to make within ten years time, as their Harriers look to be end-of-life in the 2025-2027 timeframe. They are currently flying AV-8B's from the Juan Carlos I LHD. What modifications Juan Carlos I would require appear to be hard to find.

While I could not find any articles that stated the Juan Carlos I would require "Bee" mods, Wikipedia states the RAN Canberra-class, itself either the Juan Carlos I-class, or derived therefrom would require mods:

In May 2014, Minister for Defence David Johnston stated in media interviews that the government was considering acquiring F-35B fighters for the Canberra's, and Prime Minister Tony Abbott instructed 2015 Defence White Paper planners to consider the option of embarking F-35B squadrons aboard the two ships.[35][36] This assessment found that the cost of modifying the ships to operate jets would be very high, and the idea was rejected before the completion of the White Paper.

Opponents to operating F-35s from the Canberra-class state that embarking enough aircraft to be an effective force would require abandoning their capability as amphibious warfare vessels, operating as an aircraft carrier would make the ships higher profile targets and need greater escorting forces, existing fuel and ordnance storage would not be able to sustain fixed-wing operations, structural modifications were needed to reinforce and heat-treat the flight deck to withstand F-35B vertical thrust,a was rejected before the completion of the White Paper.

But the Canberra-class was apparently just laid down in 2009. Shirley by 2009 nautical engineers had an inkling of how much an F-35B would weigh, and could calculate a conservative design heat-flux using AV-8B exhaust temps and some engineering swag? Also, the Canberra's are the largest LHD outside the US, and were designed to support Harrier ops, as the Spanish are flying twelve AV-8B's from the Juan Carlos I. So what is this about "existing fuel and ordnance storage would not be able to sustain fixed-wing operations"? At 27,000 tons empty, and with Harrier ops accounted for, lack of sufficient av fuel and ammo storage would seem to be a red herring, no?

From experience reading their sheeitt, we know that journalists have little, if any clue, to thermodynamics and heat flux as it may apply to structural engineering, they only being able to parrot "high temperature" of the F-35B... and everything is fixed by spraying the deck with a heat-resistant coating as if all temperature problems are fixed by spraying urethane (or better yet - teflon -- why hasn't some journo come up with teflon? it's used on frying pans for chrissake) on a surface.

Is there an non-US F-35B ready ship out there at this time? Or do they all require modification of some sort? And what modifications are required -- deck strengthening? real thermal issues? elevator weight capacity?

[steve2267]

Some further searching seems to confirm that the Juan Carlos I and Canberra classes will support F-35B ops with little, if any, changes required.

First, I found two posts by Spaz in a different thread that have some nice quotes of articles / posts made by one Steve George, an air engineer officer in the Royal Navy for 28 years:

Forget the carrier option: an engineer’s response

LHD and STOVL—An engineer’s view

Mr. George seems to echo BP's assessment about the largest cost being re-gaining / re-establishing a naval aviation echosystem:

In my experience, the key challenge in delivering a viable maritime aviation capability wouldn’t be the equipment, but in re-generating the required naval-aviation expertise.

Then I found the following article written by Mr. George, that somehow seems to have escaped posting / quoting by the wonderful and all-knowing spAZ:

LHD and F-35B: the debate opens up
by Steve George 26 Nov 2014

Debate over the possibility of operating F-35B aircraft from the Canberra LHDs has opened up—a good thing. This post offers technical and tactical thoughts to stimulate the debate and challenge recent assertions.

The feasibility of acquiring an F-35B/LHD capability is a key issue. Some assert that it’d be highly complex, take the ships out of service for long periods, cost $500 million, and require decades to achieve. Those assertions massively overstate the problems and ignore a plethora of inconvenient facts.

The Canberras retain the essential capability of the ‘Juan Carlos I’ design, including features that support the F-35B. They have air traffic control facilities for helicopter operations, which would support STOVL, although an additional lighting system may be required for bad weather operations. The F-35B wouldn’t require large ‘specialised’ maintenance facilities to be built into the ship, although adaptation of existing spaces might be required. The Canberras have enough fuel to support F-35Bs, and large weapons magazines. Claims to the contrary are incorrect.

Flight-deck heating issues are consistently overstated. Heat-resistant coatings might be required, but are easily applied. Other measures such as a ‘creeping’ vertical landing would further alleviate what’s already a minor issue.

The bottom line? Operating the F-35B from LHDs is technically feasible and well within the capability of the ADF. It wouldn’t be free, but nor would it break the bank.

... <snip> ...

Maritime nations have repeatedly used sea-based aircraft to support land-based aircraft or to provide air power where land-based aircraft couldn’t. Some nations have achieved this more than others—every aircraft shot down by the UK since 1945 has fallen to embarked aircraft. Given the maritime geography of SE Asia and the South Pacific, the ADF can’t afford to ignore those lessons. A mixed fleet of 100 A and B F-35 variants, with F-35Bs able to operate from both land and sea, would give the ADF a much-enhanced capability to bring decisive air power to bear quickly as, where and when required. An LHD/F-35B capability would also fall neatly within the aims of Plan Jericho, providing the ADF with an opportunity to integrate and exploit the advanced information-gathering and distribution systems of the F-35 and the RAN surface fleet and RAAF Wedgetails and Poseidons.

... <snip> ...

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/lhd-and-f-35b-the-debate-opens-up/

My conclusion: Juan Carlos I / Canberra class require little, if any, modification to support F-35B STOVL ops. Any modifications required would certainly not appear to "break the bank." Also, there was much debate in ozzieland about not opting for F-35Bs on LHDs, and it would seem there is still a sizeable (?) group of technically astute ozzies that do not agree with the RAN / ADF decision. The good news would appear to be that if the political will is there, Australia could re-constitute her Naval aviation tradition (relatively) easily.

Mr. George did make a good point, though. He was not arguing in favor of operating the Canberra or the Adelaide as a light carrier, but rather as an LHD with STOVL aircraft. I think the distinction may be subtle but important. Related to this distinction is anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and the (arguable) fact that ASW aircraft operations have been left to languish, perhaps most of all by the USN with the demise of the S-3 Viking and the conclusion of the Cold War. Throwing a dozen F-35B's on an LHD does not a blue water carrier strike group make, even though those Bees bring a LOT of capability.

[neptune]

1- Some further searching seems to confirm that the Juan Carlos I and Canberra classes will support F-35B ops with little, if any, changes required.....

2- Related to this distinction is anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and the (arguable) fact that ASW aircraft operations have been left to languish, perhaps most of all by the USN with the demise of the S-3 Viking and the conclusion of the Cold War.

3- Throwing a dozen F-35B's on an LHD does not a blue water carrier strike group make, even though those Bees bring a LOT of capability.

....totally agree and, even if it can be done; with only two ships, they may be over-committed to their existing helo/ humanitarian requirements and still require additional support "lest time of war". These are definitely "juicy" submarine targets!

[spazsinbad]

Again a long blurb about 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs'/questions - why not post that on the appropriate thread? Meanwhile....

download/file.php?id=20201

[steve2267]

Again a long blurb about 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs'/questions - why not post that on the appropriate thread?

Why? Because it is appropos to this thread as well. My question concerned all non-US LHD/LHA's. Oz LHD's qualify, don't they? They are very close to the Juan Carlos I, if not identical, so it applies there as well. I would have included more information regarding any Cavour mods that may be required for F-35B ops... if I could have found such a list, but I could not.

Perhaps I'll pop over to the Ozzieland thread and throw a link over to here so the Ozziecurious don't miss out on this bit o'information...

I suppose I could go on and on about how IMO the great island nation of Australia can't see beyond her own nose when it comes to why she shouldn't have or maintain at least one carrier, or why, at the very least, she shouldn't leverage her F-35 investment and put some Bees on her LHD's... but that sort of opining really ought to go on the Ozzie LHD thread. Actually, it shouldn't. That thread was if the RAN was going to put F-35Bs on LHDs. And the answer is NO, shut the door, close the thread. So, really, I should start a new thread, "Why the great land of Oz really should put Bees on LHD's." Then it would be appropos there.

[blindpilot]

Some further searching seems to confirm that the Juan Carlos I and Canberra classes will support F-35B ops with little, if any, changes required...
The Canberras retain the essential capability of the ‘Juan Carlos I’ design, including features that support the F-35B. They have air traffic control facilities for helicopter operations, which would support STOVL, although an additional lighting system may be required for bad weather operations. The F-35B wouldn’t require large ‘specialised’ maintenance facilities to be built into the ship, although adaptation of existing spaces might be required. The Canberras have enough fuel to support F-35Bs, and large weapons magazines. Claims to the contrary are incorrect.

Flight-deck heating issues are consistently overstated. Heat-resistant coatings might be required, but are easily applied. Other measures such as a ‘creeping’ vertical landing would further alleviate what’s already a minor issue.

The bottom line? Operating the F-35B from LHDs is technically feasible and well within the capability of the ADF. It wouldn’t be free, but nor would it break the bank.
....
Mr. George did make a good point, though. He was not arguing in favor of operating the Canberra or the Adelaide as a light carrier, but rather as an LHD with STOVL aircraft. I think the distinction may be subtle but important. Related to this distinction is anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and the (arguable) fact that ASW aircraft operations have been left to languish, perhaps most of all by the USN with the demise of the S-3 Viking and the conclusion of the Cold War. Throwing a dozen F-35B's on an LHD does not a blue water carrier strike group make, even though those Bees bring a LOT of capability.

I would say that what I have seen is two overstatements concerning the work to mod the LHD's (or really the US America class series ships).
1. The melting deck issue is definitely overblown. It is reasonably easy to fix especially on ships designed with STOVL ops in the first place (loose deck equipment layouts etc.)
That IS a red herring! If you want to do it, it is not a big deal.

2. Ship infrastructure layout for mission effectiveness. (fuel storage weapon handling, maintenance facility etc.)
That is a big deal! The Aussie ships are not "essentially Juan Carlos designs." There were several structural changes made for the LHD focus. Those would have to be designed back out, "Undoing" a structural layout is more expensive than building it in. There is a significant cost here, despite the "It's already Juan Carlos" protestations. Doable? Sure. Cheap? No.

But in the end it's the same discussion as the US has with the LHA America's. Dock or no dock? Is it an aviation ship or an amphib? As in the S Korean Dodko discussion. If you use the garage as a hangar, you will not put any tanks in there, and you can't just drive aircraft and tanks in and out of the garage "as needed" without some major sacrifices to fixed layouts. So it will not hold as many tanks or aircraft as full commitment changes could have.

And of course the ecosystem issues that take decades will not go away, just because I'm using 6 and not 90 aircraft.

MHO,
BP

[spazsinbad]

'BP' said:

"...2. Ship infrastructure layout for mission effectiveness. (fuel storage weapon handling, maintenance facility etc.) That is a big deal! The Aussie ships are not "essentially Juan Carlos designs." There were several structural changes made for the LHD focus. Those would have to be designed back out, "Undoing" a structural layout is more expensive than building it in. There is a significant cost here, despite the "It's already Juan Carlos" protestations. Doable? Sure. Cheap? No...."

Got a link to source of this information please? This type of claim -unsupported- is really annoying when several credible people have made claims exactly the opposite (and of course these claims are elsewhere on this forum). The sad part really is that the RAN/Oz Gubmint have not released a report about why it is too hard to put F-35Bs on LHDs - at least temporarily. Naysayers concentrate on making the LHDs an ersatz aircraft carrier. NOT ME. Just make the Oz LHDs capable of being a 'spare deck' for other F-35B users. Then by incrementalism the RAAF may ping that it is easier to provide FLEET DEFENCE for the LHDs in a creepy environment by having - when required - some RAAF F-35Bs (which they have to find gainful employment ashore otherwise). Not a big deal - but sure let us all make a big deal out of it so when it happens we can all feel wunnerful.

I'm told the QE CVF when visiting SE Asia South China Sea will swing by Australia so perhaps the clamour will increase?

[steve2267]

2. Ship infrastructure layout for mission effectiveness. (fuel storage weapon handling, maintenance facility etc.)
That is a big deal! The Aussie ships are not "essentially Juan Carlos designs." There were several structural changes made for the LHD focus. Those would have to be designed back out, "Undoing" a structural layout is more expensive than building it in. There is a significant cost here, despite the "It's already Juan Carlos" protestations. Doable? Sure. Cheap? No.

I agree that backing out / undoing structural layout changes are not insignificant. I was not aware such changes had been made to the Juan Carlos I design. As these are not insignificant, I am surprised they were not mentioned or addressed by Mr. George in his articles / comments to which I linked above.

BP (or spaz or...) can you elaborate on what changes were made to the Juan Carlos-class? I see that the JC carries four LCM-1E landing craft (which the Canberra's appear to also carry, though the Aussies call them LLC's) in a well deck.

ETA: Woopsie, I see that Spaz was quicker on the keyboard than I.

[spazsinbad]

'StevieWunnerful' said above:

"...I would have included more information regarding any Cavour mods that may be required for F-35B ops... if I could have found such a list, but I could not...."

I'm fairly sure that an Italian Admiral has been quoted by SLDinfo regarding the minimal changes to CAVOUR for F-35B ops.

Another Bob Rogers Show - Here We GOOOOOOO - to one sentence paragraph HELL.....

"...The Cavour will see some changes as well; there are no structural changes necessary but some adaptations such as dedicated secure networks and laying down a new type of surface treatment for the ship flight deck....

...The Cavour will be eventually be stocked with the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, replacing the aging Harriers. It has room for ten F-35Bs in the hanger and six on the deck.... viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20426&p=262846&hilit=Cavour+SLDinfo#p262846

[spazsinbad]

JC1 has to pre-wet the deck for HOT Hairier ops.... They need the USMC SquarePants Solution!