F-35Bs Establishing potential of Australian aircraft carrier

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1199
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post17 Dec 2018, 20:17

ricnunes wrote:....which for example seems to be the reason why the Sky Jump was kept and this despite Australia not having plans to operate fixed-wing aircraft from those ships at the time of purchase and building.


The Ski Jump hull section was kept because it would cost more to build a new section without it, than just keep the same pieces as used before. (Actually, the Ski Jump might be one of the easier add ons to just bolt on the front of an existing flattop. see options for the Japanese. So a design change later for the ski jump is nearly trivial). That was just a cheap way to use the same metal cutting assembly tools/jigs. Why pay to make a new piece, instead of one that's already been set up in the yard. That doesn't mean all the JC equipment, space layout usage was installed in the hull. The Ski Jump decision had no mission design meaning. It was all about costs.

A 10ft by 10ft kitchen might be the same as a 10ft by 10ft bedroom in a similar framed house. But once equipped the bedroom is not a kitchen, even if the stairs come to the same door on the north side of the house, and that bedroom probably doesn't have any plumbing in it, unless I decide to run some pipes and put in a vanity sink, and it still will not be a kitchen.

MHO,
BP
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post17 Dec 2018, 21:39

Someone, Spaz(?), mentioned once the possibility of cross-decking F-35B’s on the Canberra’s as a possible contingency. Has there been any jibber jabber about when such contingency exercises might be conducted? (Does the deck or ship structure require any modifications before such exercises could be conducted?)

And while I’m asking... has there been mention of any Osprey cross-decking too?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Dec 2018, 22:16

blindpilot wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
blindpilot wrote:..
1. The Canberra Class is NOT EQ to Juan Carlos.

Well, everything that I read about the Canberras is that they are basically equal to the Juan Carlos I (namely in terms of structure)...

This is what came from Spain. Much of the internal structure unfinished, and obviously no Island superstructure, or most fittings. That includes internal space setups. Those are Australia Canberra class unique. The hull is not a ship...."
Just saying, MHO anyway, BP

Heheh. I'll have to dig out pics of the building of our LHDs with the INTERNAL HULL BULKHEADs etc. A ship needs bulkheads otherwise the big space will COLLAPSE, it is true the ISLAND is different according to Oz requirements. I do not believe anyone argues with that aspect. HULL HULL HULL every body cries - HULL HULL HULL is more or less the same.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Dec 2018, 22:20

steve2267 wrote:Someone, Spaz(?), mentioned once the possibility of cross-decking F-35B’s on the Canberra’s as a possible contingency. Has there been any jibber jabber about when such contingency exercises might be conducted? (Does the deck or ship structure require any modifications before such exercises could be conducted?) And while I’m asking... has there been mention of any Osprey cross-decking too?

Spaz eh. I wish he would just SHUT UP. However an Oz LHD captain specifically mentioned (in the Oz thread probably?) that F-35Bs will NOT cross deck (LHD not ready now or in future) not even in emergency. There are pictures of an USMC Osprey onboard an Oz LHD with a few stories in the forum about testing said V-22 onboard & underneath JCI years back.

http://www.janes.com/article/62297/rimp ... -22-osprey [ERROR!!!!]
&
http://www.janes.com/article/62367/rimp ... 3e-landing [ERROR!!!!] [1 page PDF of both articles attached now PRN]
Attachments
V-22 & CH-53E CANBERRA 2016 RIMPAC PRN.pdf
(166.55 KiB) Downloaded 58 times
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Dec 2018, 23:08

Reprinted (PRN) - so no links are live - 187 page PDF about RAN LHDs. These pages do not include MOST arguments about having F-35Bs onboard. Due to file size limitations of this forum THAT PDF will be uploaded soonish like. Lots of this material is already in this forum even in an old version of this PDF most likely. SEARCH is your FREND not your FIEND. :twisted:
Attachments
OzLHDmaterial18dec2018pp187prn.pdf
(10.72 MiB) Downloaded 913 times
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1199
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post18 Dec 2018, 00:33

spazsinbad wrote:... building of our LHDs with the INTERNAL HULL BULKHEADs etc. A ship needs bulkheads otherwise the big space will COLLAPSE, it is true the ISLAND is different according to Oz requirements. I do not believe anyone argues with that aspect. ... HULL is more or less the same.


The load bearing bulkheads still do not constitute the functional setup of the ship's spaces. Take for example the LHD1/LHD8/LHA6/LHA8 variations on the "same hull." or as with the new LSDX and the LPD 17s. The hospitals get bigger and then smaller, moved up a deck, into the gyrene berths, the fuel storage out of the hangar space, boilers and steam turbines(LHD 1-7), or gas turbine/diesel electrics-CODLOG (Maikin Island/LHAs) yet the Wasp, Makin Island, America, and Bougainville really are basically the same hull.

I doubt the Canberra -Juan Carlos differences are as massive (other than island superstructure which isn't tiny) as decades of ship evolution from LHD 1 to LHA 8, but I have no problem saying Canberra is NOT EQ JC. And Juan Carlos I hasn't even begun to scope the cost of moving from Harriers to Lightnings, and that won't be "pocket change," even if it's "designed for."

I'm not saying it can't be adapted for F-35Bs, or even that it shouldn't be. I simply stated that it "is not that easy." Some of the posts here had started to make it sound like it would be. It started to sound like
"Hey it's just JC II, and that already flies F-35s! Piece of cake!"
No it's not, and they don't have F-35s yet, and don't eat that cake till it's finished baking.

As with the America Class, dock or no dock, more gas or bigger hospital. Hospital in the troop berthing? How many berths convertible? how many vehicles? Tall hangar spots? All of that has to be sorted out and it impacts concept of ops range of options.

As before I'm inclined to think perhaps they should adapt Canberra/Adelaide enough to have a cpl (2?) Bee's able to sit alert on deck, and have all else (crew, maintenance, parts, ALIS, maybe even a few pastic wrapped aircraft in a storage area) on an inexpensive aviation support ship.
1597px-SS_Wright_(T-AVB-3)_underway_at_sea_on_26_January_2007.jpg
AVB 3 Wright

As an example, USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3) only cost $135M, and could support 40 ships crew and a 325 person maintenance detachment plus some additional aircrew types. It has a hangar with space for 2-4 birds being wrked on. That would provide some integrated air cover, and the ability to set up a forward land base. Maybe even an emergency baby carrier capability for short term that doesn't expect heavy sortie generation.
USNS_Lewis_B._Puller_(T-ESB-3)_at_Naval_Station_Norfolk_on_20_April_2016.JPG
ESB Lewis B Puller

Just saying,
and it is just MHO,
BP
Last edited by blindpilot on 18 Dec 2018, 01:10, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Dec 2018, 00:49

'BP' you can have your doubts according to history of your LHAs but if you read the PDF near beginning you will see the Oz LHDs are only changed from the deck up - in the island - in the space already available. I cannot answer for others claiming supporting F-35Bs on Oz LHDs is a 'piece of cake' - I myself have not said that for a very long time (at beginning of this long running saga not a lot was known about F-35B ops on a ship or about the F-35B or about the Oz LHDs). It was surprising that USS America had to have 'intercostal whatnames' installed but no surprise about other stuff either having to be moved or protected, similarly CVF had a few changes when better modelling about effect of F-35B exhaust was known. JCI was designed a long time before the F-35B flew, so there will be some changes for sure - not withstanding any common sense changes known well beforehand. It is sad that most of the details about Oz LHDs or changes from one country version to another are so opaque. The USN used to be very open about NavAv however now they are similarly closed along with the rest of US Armed Forces. Speculation is just that, one day we may know more, until then: (an apocryphal story perhaps?)
REMOVE SKI JUMP from LHDs
19 Oct 2012 MarkLBailey

"“Without revealing anything I should not, I was present in 2002 at Puckapunyal [ARMY training base] when the modelling was done to recommend either the Spanish or the French design. During the process, the question was asked if Treasury & Finance would provide additional funds to remove the fixed-wing capable light carrier elements of the Navantia design (ski jump, certain magazines and elevators, certain other systems, some weight and space).

The answer was an emphatic no.

All the systems were dual use. To my knowledge, none were removed or not installed. Therefore she is perfectly capable of operating something like SHAR or STOVL F-35, although undoubtedly additional kit would be needed (hence the weight and space mentioned above). The Navy guys were so delighted with the Treasury response they were too terrified even to move a muscle. It was as funny as hell to watch. Cheers: mark”

Source: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... ugust-2012
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1907
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Dec 2018, 00:56

blindpilot wrote:This is what came from Spain. Much of the internal structure unfinished, and obviously no Island superstructure, or most fittings. That includes internal space setups. Those are Australia Canberra class unique. The hull is not a ship.

I could slap a flat top on a container ship. That doesn't make it the same as the container ship.

Just saying,
MHO anyway,
BP


No, at least not according to the following website:
http://www.hmascanberra.com/history/nushipcanberra.html

According to the page above:
The Australian Government stated that around 25 percent of the value of the project would involve work in Australia. This would be largely limited to construction of the superstructures of the two ships in Tenix's (now BAE Systems') shipyard in Williamstown, Victoria, with some systems work done in South Australia.


So that hull structure (from your photo) should be pretty much completed and previously built in Spain while the superstructure is built in Australia to be later added to hull structure.

And of course logic and common sense would mean that even if the JCI and the Canberras have somehow different superstructures then this would have a NIL/NULL effect on the Canberras ability to operate V/STOL aircraft.


blindpilot wrote:The Ski Jump hull section was kept because it would cost more to build a new section without it, than just keep the same pieces as used before. (Actually, the Ski Jump might be one of the easier add ons to just bolt on the front of an existing flattop. see options for the Japanese. So a design change later for the ski jump is nearly trivial). That was just a cheap way to use the same metal cutting assembly tools/jigs. Why pay to make a new piece, instead of one that's already been set up in the yard. That doesn't mean all the JC equipment, space layout usage was installed in the hull. The Ski Jump decision had no mission design meaning. It was all about costs.


I would say that if a "simple piece" such as the Ski Jump (as you put it) where kept for the simplicity (and as such cost) sake then the probability of all the rest belonging to the hull and inside it (hangar spaces, ramps, elevators, etc...) which in most cases would be more complex than a Ski Jump would then and also be equal between the JCI ship and the Canberra ones.


blindpilot wrote:A 10ft by 10ft kitchen might be the same as a 10ft by 10ft bedroom in a similar framed house. But once equipped the bedroom is not a kitchen, even if the stairs come to the same door on the north side of the house, and that bedroom probably doesn't have any plumbing in it, unless I decide to run some pipes and put in a vanity sink, and it still will not be a kitchen.

MHO,
BP


I fail to see the reasoning beyond your logic. IMO both the JCI and the Canberras would be "kitchens" and not one being a "kitchen" while the other being a "bedroom" but here I digress...
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1907
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Dec 2018, 01:00

@spaz,

Thanks for your very informative post.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1465
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post18 Dec 2018, 01:03

When people say its easier, its probably that the RAN doesn't have to install a ski-jump, make the hanger bigger, lengthen the ship or major mods along those lines. The Canberra's are using the same Mactaggert Scott elevators that can carry the F-35B so I don't think it means just operating Bs from the deck.

What would be helpful is if someone, not pointing at anyone and really asking posters in general, specifically to point out what exactly is the engineering issue rather than "its not that easy"? That can help to dispel the misconceptions.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post18 Dec 2018, 01:08

If the Canberra’s can handle Ospreys, me thinks they can either take Bees too, or the changes required would be “minimal.”

Me also wonders if the Brit’s development of SRVL might not eliminate any ‘thermal’ deck issues, as the heat load should be far less concentrated, spread out across the deck, as it were. The only question I see is if they are wide enough to support SRVL. In other words, VL would be a rare, possibly emergency use only recovery mode on the Canberra’s.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1199
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post18 Dec 2018, 01:27

I guess I don't see right now where they could set a true (reasonably high sortie rate as Harrier carriers have done) carrier without a third ship or losing significant Amphib capability. As above the budget may only allow $150-300M for upgrades/a third ship.

And I'm just speculating along with the rest of you. What I'd love (and I bet the RAN as well) would be one of those Brit CVs, which as I mentioned on that thread "may" just be available for a couple $100M some day :D That may be more likely and happen sooner than a Canberra upgrade/Oz Bee purchase. The RAF really seems to want to make it happen :roll:

Just pondering out loud,
BP
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Dec 2018, 01:39

IF speculation is allowed I spy with my little eye a third LHD specifically outfitted to operate F-35Bs with any amphib capability taking a back seat. Then at some point some 'minimal changes' may be made to the two initial LHDs to operate F-35Bs in an emergency. Australia is a small nation with a very large sea area to police in every sense. The SAR [search & rescue] region is just enormous and the responsibility of Australian assets. Long ago there was a maintenance ship but long gone. Do 'PULLER' F-35Bs carry out VTOs? IF going to the 'PULL the other one' trouble then why not get a 3rd AV LHD?

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/me ... rategy.pdf (7.8Mb)
&
http://www.defence.gov.au/Publications/wpaper1987.pdf (12.7Mb)
Attachments
AustralianMaritimeJurisdictionMAP.jpg
AustraliaYou'reStandingInItOceanMap.jpg
Last edited by spazsinbad on 18 Dec 2018, 01:55, edited 1 time in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5310
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Dec 2018, 01:51

Why not just a purpose built Sea Control Ship???
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Dec 2018, 01:58

Corsair1963 wrote:Why not just a purpose built Sea Control Ship???

Not sure IF this point has been made here, in other threads or just on other forums I pester with tonnes of LHD material, however: is it not clear that having a similar LHD (albeit perhaps only slightly modified) to operate a bunch of F-35Bs and <gasp> helos will be a lot easier for the RAN to crew, operate and integrate with the present fleet of two such LHDs?

At a twist probably with minimal mods said third LHD will also be able to carry out HADR and other duties as seen fit.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests