Canberra Class
Thread Starter
Canberra Class
I took this picture from the Sydney Tower of Fleet Base East and in it you see the 2 Canberra Class Helicopter Platform ships, and you see they have Ski Jumps. This led me to consult Wiki and I see they were constructed to plans used for the Spanish Navy San Juan, (Harrier ) and even though Australia have no plans to operate Harrier or F35b it was cheaper to go with the plans including ski jump, and would have cost more to build with no ski jump
Guess who the builders were?.....Yep Bae
Guess who the builders were?.....Yep Bae
BAe would have charged them $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to remove that jump............
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bognor Regis
Age: 73
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well....actually...(according to Wiki)... BAe may be off the hook anyway. From flight deck down it's based on Juan Carlos I, and bid/constructed by Spanish company Navantia. BAe Australia did the superstucture. But I can imagine it would have been expensive - and you never know when a ski jump might come in handy?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,818 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
But I can imagine it would have been expensive - and you never know when a ski jump might come in handy?
As the ramp in integral to the hull, the whole design of the front of the ship would have had to be changed to remove the ski ramp - affecting not just the physical engineering of that area, but also the aerodynamics and hydrodynamics of the ship (less weight at the front)
So it makes sense that it was cheaper just to sick with the original hull
So it makes sense that it was cheaper just to sick with the original hull
The ships were purchased off the plan, it was to expensive to redesign them without the ramp and it was to expensive to redesign the ramp (and other areas ) for operation of the a F-35. If they were to remove the ramp they would have to change the structure of the forward 1/4 of the ship, then all the testing involved of the change. What do they gain ? Maybe an extra parking spot for the helicopter Cost >> benefit
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having toured the still-under-construction hull of L02 at Navatia at Ferrol in Spain in November 2010, that would be news to Navantia.
The hulls were were built and launched in Spain by Navatia, put on a transporter and shipped to Williamstown shipyard in Melbourne, where the BAE-built island was fitted.
BAE was the contracted entity, but to say that BAE were the builders isn’t accurate.
https://navantia.com.au/capabilities/canberra-class/
The hulls were were built and launched in Spain by Navatia, put on a transporter and shipped to Williamstown shipyard in Melbourne, where the BAE-built island was fitted.
BAE was the contracted entity, but to say that BAE were the builders isn’t accurate.
https://navantia.com.au/capabilities/canberra-class/
Are the decks treated appropriately to allow for the jet blast from an F35 as well ?
From what I’ve read, lacking this protection would be a show stopper for that aircraft
From what I’ve read, lacking this protection would be a show stopper for that aircraft
Because it was built as amphibous ship, much of a aviation side of fitting were removed on converted in fuction. ie the amount of avgas it contains was changed to other fuels. some of the ammunition elevators were not installed. So the ship would have limited capacity to operate harriers even. If we wanted something to operate F-35 probably cheaper to buy something else than convert one of these
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
Buying something unsuitable for one particular purpose (because it was very obviously designed to do something else) is an error of the manufacturer?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,818 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
Rattman,
Surely you mean Avtur or Avcat, unless after buying the ships the RAN can only afford to run a fleet of Robinson R22's off their tubs.
Surely you mean Avtur or Avcat, unless after buying the ships the RAN can only afford to run a fleet of Robinson R22's off their tubs.
https://www.fmv.se/FTP/Drivmedel_201...F-44_Shell.pdf
Last edited by rattman; 10th Aug 2019 at 09:18.
The purchase of the LHD's goes back over 20 years - the requirement was discussed in a White Paper in 2000 and confirmed in 206.
the aim was to project power across the Australasian area and to assist in humanitarian/police actions. Of course the possibility of doing other things (aka mission creep) was identified early on and there was discussion of using F-35B's.
The need for special coatings etc wasn't appreciated until they were well into development - around 2014/15. The assumption had always been that the F-35B would operate where a Harrier had operated. Even the USN were caught out and had to dock the USS "America" for nearly a year just after she commissioned to fix the problem.
Australia has only ordered F-35A's so any "carrier ops" would require B's or C's
Malcolm Davis in"The Strategist" in Jan 2019 advocated "taking the F-35 to sea" but admits that neither of the current vessels are suitable and it would cost at least $A 500 million EACH to modify. He suggested:-
" If the money is made available, a third LHD with a wing of between 12 and 16 F-35Bs, supported by a larger fleet of destroyers and frigates, is an option that should be on the agenda in any force structure debate."
The cost of such a program to produce a force of 16 aircraft seems make it highly unlikely that the F-35B will ever be acquired TBH - worse IMHO, is that people will start to think of the 3rd vessel as an Aircraft Carrier and put it in harms way in the same way that the RN confused Battle Cruisers with Battleships in 1914 which proved very costly at Jutland...................
the aim was to project power across the Australasian area and to assist in humanitarian/police actions. Of course the possibility of doing other things (aka mission creep) was identified early on and there was discussion of using F-35B's.
The need for special coatings etc wasn't appreciated until they were well into development - around 2014/15. The assumption had always been that the F-35B would operate where a Harrier had operated. Even the USN were caught out and had to dock the USS "America" for nearly a year just after she commissioned to fix the problem.
Australia has only ordered F-35A's so any "carrier ops" would require B's or C's
Malcolm Davis in"The Strategist" in Jan 2019 advocated "taking the F-35 to sea" but admits that neither of the current vessels are suitable and it would cost at least $A 500 million EACH to modify. He suggested:-
" If the money is made available, a third LHD with a wing of between 12 and 16 F-35Bs, supported by a larger fleet of destroyers and frigates, is an option that should be on the agenda in any force structure debate."
The cost of such a program to produce a force of 16 aircraft seems make it highly unlikely that the F-35B will ever be acquired TBH - worse IMHO, is that people will start to think of the 3rd vessel as an Aircraft Carrier and put it in harms way in the same way that the RN confused Battle Cruisers with Battleships in 1914 which proved very costly at Jutland...................
The Turkish Navy has recently launched the TCG Anadolu (Anatolia) which is a San Juan class as well, with the hull by Navantia.They were interested in obtaining Harriers as an interim fit and then F-35s, but as some astute observers will have noted, Turkey has been hoofed from the F-35 programme.
One has to wonder whether carriers like this would ever be used or put in a position against a stronger adversary. If not, and they are used to project a countries power at a distance, then I guess they would be money well spent.
I would suggest few countries (apart from the Brits and the Yanks) would be foolhardy enough to send them up against the likes of Russia or China .
I would suggest few countries (apart from the Brits and the Yanks) would be foolhardy enough to send them up against the likes of Russia or China .