via The Diplomat.
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 short take-off and vertical landing, 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.Read the entire article here.
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.
Not sure what to make of this article. I do note that it was first published by the Australian think tank ASPI.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is a product of a major disconnect. The ASPI report does mention some of the reasons why it can't be done, but here is more. They would have something if there was a fantasy Harrier III (less weight, less fuel consumption etc).... and what we know today... a broader capability compared to the F-35B. Otherwise, F-35B on the LHD is feeble-minded fantasy. The ski-ramp is a monument to mismanagement of the entrenched defence bureaucracy in this country. As an aside, the LHD would be useful for other-than-war or vs. weak threats. There are too many strong threats in the Pacific Rim that would kill this thing quick. Part 2: the helicopter solution and AFV solution to be deployed with this ship have significant problems of their own. At least the Army itself, is a good institution. Part 3; The RAN needs every crewmember it can scrape together. These 2 ships could end up consuming crew slots best used for something else. And if you are going to have ships that can only do other-than-war and low-threat, there are probably better (smaller) solutions. ASPI is famous for being: tax-payer funded, and weak on understanding air power.
ReplyDeleteASPI is also supported by . . .guess who? That's right, Lockheed Martin, as seen here. So ASPI is just another flack for LockMart, along with Reuters and the rest.
DeleteYup. That has been on-going for years. Have blogged about that occasionally thanks for bringing that up. Hard to be an "independent" think-tank.
DeleteThis is nothing more than a writing by a Lockheed consultant trying to sell F-35B to every possible customer.
ReplyDeleteErm, no. Did you even read ASPI's report? The two academics actually recommended against putting F-35Bs on the LHDs.
DeleteThe blog written by Steve George was written specifically to debunk some of the ideas put forward in ASPI's report.
DeleteNO i did not read the ASPI report. i did however read the article that i linked to and that is the issue at hand. no one is interested in inside ASPI political moves. we are interested in the idea that the article's writer put forward. stay on topic.
DeleteDid you notice I was replying to Slowman's post where he claimed The article you posted was written by a Lockmart consultant??? That seems pretty on-topic to me...
DeleteThe article in the Diplomat was a word-for-word copy of one which appeared on ASPI late last week
DeleteGeorge's bought-and-paid-for article promotes F-35B on Canberra, as Slowman indicates.
Delete"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."
Andrew, does your COMINT receive funding from Lockheed?
I can assure you Steve George's article was NOT bought and paid for by anyone. Read it carefully - he's nopt advocating buying F-35Bs, he's trying to debunk some of the myths about what it would take to operate them from the LHDs.
DeleteAnd no COMINT does not receive funding from LockMart. Do you? If not, then the obvious conclusion to draw is that you're obviously biased against them right?
I'm surprised that Australia hasn't asked the USMC to fly F35s off it's LHD too......
ReplyDeleteSo it can land and take off without melting the flight deck.............can it fight and win?
ReplyDeleteLooks like the Israeli buy is back but they are "staggering" it....must be because it's so affordable.
ReplyDeletehttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/israel-stagger-purchase-second-f-35-batch-211618292--finance.html
" It wouldn't be free, but nor would it break the bank".....mmm I don't see that from information availible...or should that be taken as - 'it can be done Australia, and so it wont break our (LM) bank'.
ReplyDeleteWhy would the RAN want the Flying Sausage when the US Navy doesn't want it? Here is CNO Greenert’s 2014 Position Report. Admiral Greenert mentions many systems, including the EA-18G Growler and the X-47B UCAS, and even coastal patrol ships, but there is no mention of F-35.
ReplyDeleteConsider the source. Steve George, the author of this ASPI F-35 puff piece, is a former Lockheed employee who is now a "consultant" i.e. flack for Lockheed. George's record found here:
"Successful career as Air Engineer Officer in the Royal Navy rising to rank of Commander. Wide range of appointments including operational command, maintenance management, management of aircraft update programmes, equipment acquisition and a range of specialist technical roles.
"Subsequent experience in industry working in USA on Joint Strike Fighter programme, with specialist expertise in 'system of systems' integration. Followed by move to consultancy work which has included management of avionics upgrade programmes (defensive aids and communications) for UK military aircraft."
Here's the Greenert link. Sorry.
DeleteYou did read his profile didn't you? It clearly says he was employed by BAE, not LockMart. His positive comments on the program come from his deep involvement in it, not through any financial loyalty to a (long ago) former employer.
DeleteI reported that George worked on the Joint Strike Fighter programme. Why do you fabricate?
DeleteHow do you know that George has no financial interest in a $1.5 trillion program that is in deep trouble, and is offering as you say "positive comments" in his new rile as a "consultant?"
So you didn't write this paragraph above? "Consider the source. Steve George, the author of this ASPI F-35 puff piece, is a former Lockheed employee who is now a "consultant" i.e. flack for Lockheed."
DeleteMust've been the other Don Bacon...
"How do you know that George has no financial interest in a $1.5 trillion program that is in deep trouble, and is offering as you say "positive comments" in his new rile as a "consultant?""
DeleteAnd how do you know he does which is what you're claiming? Is your default position that, only people who are on the payroll of LM view the aircraft positively?
I just got fired up because I visited the F16.net JSF fan-boy site, you know the one that looks like a bunch of monkeys in the zoo picking nits off each other, hoping to see my name mentioned ...but no. They roasted Solomon and they toasted ELP but I didn't even get warmed over. So I have to step it up a notch.
ReplyDeletewould not wast your time.
DeleteJust to add though. Ther is nothing of interest or value posted in that 'particular topic' on f16.net - other topics have value, the comments are just juvenile. I note in that particular forum topic there is NO questioning of the program what so ever (let me know if there is), is it just what seems blind faith. Even the most successful programs need to be questioned (there is not one here except from DB). I found rational for a lot of comments Hippocratic and comparisons to other programs just irrational/wrong (i.e.the development of the F14 and the crashed of the plane in early development). Well that program was actually developed, built and delivered for operations on time and under budget in under 4 years...any way - i am all for opinion, just not acceptance with out question and rationality. There are always 2 sides to the story -
F-16.net is a giant echo chamber where 5 prominent posters continuously engage in self-reinforcing circle jerking with a level of endurance that would make a puberty-stricken 12 year old weep with a crippling penile fracture.
DeleteYou would think they worked as stockbrokers for LMT while they aren't fervently supporting the USAF's pet rock in their spare time.
And dont even dare say a good thing about the A10 on there.
In defense of some people who post there, there are a few gold nuggets of information amidst the morass of intellectual bankrupcy.
its not feasible.... the RAN would have to buy more AWDs to protect this thing, more resupply ships, spend a $1bn modifying the ship... plus the planes, training, etc you'd see the bill top $5bn just to get one of these things ready to successful fly F35b's and successfully fight.... as a tax payer I want the RAN to focus on buying off the shelf submarines that are on budget and actually work, build purpose built ASW ships and AAW that's it nothing else.... bloody concerning that the west has not a single missile capable of matching the Brahmos or the chinese cx1. And to think the Indian Kolkata class is achieving this and they aren't even a modern navy...
ReplyDeleteCould an A-29 Super Tucano launch off a ski jump? At least the Super-T can carry a Maverick, as well as other precision rockets and missiles not expected to be employed by F-35B until block IV.
ReplyDeleteAs to why it did not garner a mention int he 2014 Position report, simple, it's a rolling report focused on short term goals. The USN chose to be the last to go IOC (since they are still buying SHs), so it won't show as a "short term" item for a few more years. You will begin to see it in upcoming reports.
ReplyDeleteThe CNO said this last year and has yet to say anything different (seems very straight forward and unambiguous)
------------
Today’s topic, for me the F-35C is really a key part of our future. It provides a unique and essential set of capabilities for our air wing and for our carrier strike group, effectively for the fleet. And it will dramatically enhance the near term and the future air wing capability immediately upon its integration.
Now as we prepare to integrate this aircraft we’re focused on three things. One, to ensure that the F-35C delivers on the requirements that we validated that we need. Two, to make sure that integrating the F-35C into our airwing is effective and that it conforms to the carrier. It has to fit into the air wing. Third, to understand the parts that are required for affordable operation and sustainment.
Now, with regards to capability, we need stealth, we need their advanced electronic warfare sensors, the weapons and perhaps more importantly the command and control capability that this aircraft brings. With its stealth and its EW capability, it effectively enables us to be closer to the threat. You confuse targets — that means as you detect targets you can bring them together, determine what is what, what is the threat and build a common operational picture and you can engage first.
Perhaps just as important, the F-35C is designed to share this operational picture with other F-35s, other tactical aircrafts, including our Super Hornet, and other aircraft in the air wing, other ships and other platforms, via hard tactical data links. So it really is a force multiplier in addition to being an incredibly capable aircraft.
- See more at: http://cno.navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/06/19/sac-d-hearing-opening-statement-on-the-joint-strike-fighter-f-35c/#sthash.aYmKI0hi.dpuf
Today's topic is the F-35B.
DeleteYou brought up the F-35C and the CNO. I was just showing you that the USN does indeed support the F-35C.
DeleteActually I was addressing Navies and F-35 in general. But let's go to your link:
DeleteAdmiral Greenert: "...So to me Mr. Chairman the F-35C is designed to provide the capability we need and I look forward to working with this committee, with the Congress and with program committee to bring this into the fleet in an affordable rate, thank you."
The CNO doesn't say that the F-35 has the capabilities the Navy needs, because of course it doesn't. It's the design he likes, not the plane. You don't win wars with designs and there are five more years to go on SDD on an air vehicle on which mission systems have yet to be tested.
In fact the CNO has ruled out the F-35C with his ultimate caveat: "to bring this into the fleet in an affordable rate." Of course the F-35C is not affordable and never will be. For FY2015, Navy has budgeted $689,668,000 for two Flying Sausages which is $344,834,000 per prototype. That can never be made affordable, in the $60-80m range.
The Pentagon has ordered Navy to buy these things, so Greenert buys two a year. He can't be less supportive than that and keep his job.
" It provides a unique and essential set of capabilities for our air wing and for our carrier strike group"
DeleteThat remains to be seen
"And it will dramatically enhance the near term and the future air wing capability immediately upon its integration."
That is purely hypothetical, and the scant information about the F35s sortie rate is not exactly promising when it comes to availability. That availability thingy IS kind of important...
Now since every western major player acquiring pocket carrier/LHD, the quiestion is -- what is it for? What is this ships can do that US carrier groups can't? Where it is planned to be deployed?
ReplyDeleteLets evaluate the typical carrier/LHD general capabilities.
It can carry at least F-35B, and probably a lot more different aircraft types, many of them such as Super Hornets were successfully tested for operation from ski jump carriers. Basically it gives landing craft a capability to support operations of fully capable fighter force to provide cover for deployed ground forces. After LHD would finish deploying ground forces and helicopters (after initial insertion helicopters can be further operated from land) it can be used as a proxy carrier for planes arriving from larger US nuclear carriers. Latest news about US marines F-35B's exercising on foreign carries/LHD fits this well. Serving as an anchored refueling and rearming platform, it can extend range, increase number of combat sorties and shorten response time for fighter/bombers operating from larger nuclear carriers deployed at standoff distance from shore.
It does not have nuclear reactor and ground forces stuffed inside cramped LHD would prevent it from using on prolonged missions (like the months long missions). So combat mission of such carrier/LHD most likely would be short: load landing force, haul it on the shore, and then stay and operate as a proxy carrier. You can't do any prolonged "force projection" stuff with such carrier/LHD, it does not make sense. It will stay anchored until time would come to perform its spearheading rush to enemy shore.
Therefore such carriers/LHD most likely built to be used in rapid action and not to be marooned for decades. US, France, Britain, South Korea, even Japan, all already have carriers/LHD (or similar, who knows what exactly japanese "helicopter destroyer" would be capale of) or rapidly building it.
Something big is coming, soon, the question is where?
totally disagree...sort of. LHDs are a credible part of power projection. full stop. you can show the flag, land Marines, aid in disasters or use them as sea control ships. the problem with calling them mini-carriers is that they can't generate the number of sorties, nor can they credibly defend themselves from threats. cruise missiles, subs etc. anything short of peacetime operations will require a carrier battle group to link up with an amphibious group in order to carry out the most basic missions. i've never seen that part wargamed but i wonder if an ARG could even deal with a Falklands type situation solo.
DeleteLogical arguments, but what kind of disaster relief mission would require MBT's inside the hull and F-35B's on flight deck? And ski jump on the HMAS Canberra nose, just because "its too costly to saw it off" -- of course, sure! Smell fishy. But time will show us how this multipurpose carriers/LHD/whatever will be used.
Deleteattack jets are just a small portion of the aircraft carried. only 4 tanks are carried. the majority of the vehicles are humvees and mtvr's. additionally they also carry bulldozers so relief missions are just part of the ground element play book. on the aviation side they're mostly cargo and troop carrying helicopters which can be used for evacuations. so nothing is smelly about the utility. additionally the most important thing that these ships bring to disasters are strong bodies that can search for survivors, clear debris and maintain order.
DeleteWell, why not? Lets hope they only be used on disaster relief missions and not in actual combat.
Deletedon't get me wrong. the politicians and military use disaster relief as a fig leaf but that only works for certain countries. you're onto somethign when you say something is brewing. something is. LHD's are for power projection. there is no credible reason for Japan, S. Korea, or to be honest even Australia getting them unless they plan on acting in a possibly offensive manner.
Deletethat should disturb there local populace but no one seems to notice.
"as a fig leaf "
Deletehmmm, I was thinking buffalo bill-esque skin suit, but I think your point is spot on...
Years ago it was noted just how useful the Kanimbla class was with its limited aviation capability (They were reworked Newport class ships) in disaster relief. I can see the point these ships given the distance and lack of facilities involved. Case in point, USS Bataan (or another LHD) was present when Australia went into East Timor and provided air traffic control for the airport.
DeleteAs a point of interest, the Canberra LHD is driven by Azipods which can be seen hanging below the ship in this cutaway illustration. These protruding propulsion mechanisms, nearly unique for a naval vessel, have proven to be unreliable on cruise ships, and the Canberra's systems are more complex as well as being vulnerable.
ReplyDelete