I can of course attest to the fact that a carrier is a very useful platform even w/o any warbirds however the ski ramp issue is only a small portion of it. It's what can't be seen externally that is more of a concern with respect to my argument.
I've never been inside or even seen the schematics of the Juan Carlos however I don't need to. I can say with 99.99% certainty that the Juan Carlos was design with flight operations and fixed wing aircraft in mind which means the internals of the ship is as well. Everything from jet fuel storage, machine rooms, ready rooms, the flight operations room and a whole host of everything else.
I'm sure they have a variety of facilities already existing for helicopter flight operations... but whether those facilities exist in the Canberra class allowing for STOVL operations and F-35B operations is another matter. If anything it sounds like they do not exist.
From last page:
But defence officials conceded to a Senate estimates committee late last year that the jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars.
It's also worth remembering that just because a ship can effectively operate harriers does not mean it can immediately operate F-35Bs -- the heat deck issue is one which comes to mind.
But in the Canberra class's case, the modifications required seems even greater.
It would be an extreme waste that only a small portion of those capabilities is used as needed by UAVs or even helos.
At the end of the day people need to know that a carrier's primary objective is power projection and organic air power. You don't spend billions so you can only use it for secondary capabilities.
I disagree -- I see the Canberra class primarily as LHDs, not as STOVL carriers. Given what we know about what they still need to carry F-35B, and given the primary mission that the Canberras were meant to take on when the RAN first bought them, IMO it is changing the goal posts to argue that not giving them F-35Bs is only giving them "secondary capabilities".
It's more accurate to say that the integration of F-35Bs would be considered "additional capabilities" for the Canberra class LHDs. The primary capabilities of this ship should be helicopter aviation, embarking landing craft, troops, cargo, and the transport of all these assets to shore.
So, to sum up everything, the argument that the Canberras are not meeting their "potential" by not embarking F-35Bs only works if they have many of the facilities and subsystems that would allow for their operation. But by the sounds of it extensive modification and addition of other subsystems would need to occur for Canberras to have a "potential" for operating F-35Bs in the first place.
Not only would there need to be costly modifications to the ships, but also high cost to buy the F-35Bs and operate and maintain them over the years... and their presence aboard the Canberras will also naturally reduce the space available for helicopters, which let's recall was the primary aviation complement of the Canberra LHDs from their inception.
Therefore, IMO it's misrepresenting the situation to say the RAN are only acquiring "secondary capabilities" if they don't go through the entire process of modifying their Canberras to carry F-35Bs and buying F-35Bs. This is because A: carrying F-35Bs were never part of the primary goals of the ship class, and related is B: the ship cannot easily operate F-35Bs without additional cost and without sacrificing space for its primary mission capabilities.
