When is an aircraft carrier not an aircraft carrier?
 

Interesting,

Seems to be a replay of the UK's term 'Through deck Cruisers'. Perhaps the Royal Australian Navy is trying to push through a future requirement for Dave B?

Helicopter Carrier fitted with a ski jump?

Flickr: Royal Australian Navy's Photostream

Nope. Just a successful LHD type platform.

File:Spanish ship Juan Carlos I entering Ferrol.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reliance on Dave B illustrates why bigger ships are needed to ensure you get an aircraft that can fly off a carrier.....

In a case of fact is stranger than fiction I believe it was cheaper to leave the ski jump there than redesign the ship without it.

Presumably when it's been bought without any aircraft to fly off it.... :*

You'd think it would be easy to cut it flat.

Perhaps they could use a plane.






Please yerselves.

When it's in UK service :E

Meanwhile, back in the UK:ooh:

Carrier hull looms on Clyde as two sections joined up - Herald Scotland | News | Home News

When it's a cocktail party?

Beat me to it flyingblind. I was totally gobsmacked when I saw it on TV this evening. It will be interesting to get some answers from the Navy as to why they want a "through deck carrier" complete without Harriers. Perhaps there is an intent to buy the newly redundant Harriers from UK plc.

Otherwise I can't see why defence dollars have been spent on this bit of ego kit. And perhaps if they really wanted a Harrier carrier they should have waited a bit and bought Invincible at a knock down price.

Easy question easy answer.

This is not

YouTube - Japan JMSDF First "Helicopter Carrier" DDH 181 Hyuga Helicopter Destroyer Commissioned at Yokosuka

The Japanese Hyuga Helicopter Destroyer is not an aircraft carrier despite resembling (and I quote) a light aircraft carrier or amphibious assault ship such as the Italian Navy's 13,850-ton Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Spanish Navy's 17,000-ton Principe de Asturias or the Royal Navy's 21,000-ton Invincible-class carriers.[4]


Why, because the Japanese Consitution prohibits aircraft carriers and any other means of offensive power projection (such as an amphibious assault ship). Therefore it cannot be one...the government says so.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck........

Otherwise I can't see why defence dollars have been spent on this bit of ego kit. And perhaps if they really wanted a Harrier carrier they should have waited a bit and bought Invincible at a knock down price.

Because, if you want to operate helicopters in an amphibious op, then you need the best amount of deck space to do it. Experience has shown that arranging it like a carrier gives the best option.

It has f8ck-all to do with ego-projects - either you Aussies have a requirement for amphibious ops (which given your geography and neighbours you probably do) or your defence requirements staff are telling porkies.

The fact it has a ramp is probably more to do with the deck design underneath than any desire to operate STOVL. However, given that you spend a lot of time with Uncle Sam, the ability to act as a spare deck for the USMC Harriers (and potentially Dave B) might just be useful.......

As for Invincible - I'd have thought the experience of Manoora and Kanimbla would have cured you of the idea that buying second hand utterly knackered ships is a good way to save money...........

When George Osborne tried to reassure that the new aircraft carriers would still live up to the name despite claims that we wouldn't have any aircraft for them to carry!:ok:

FB:)

It looks just like the sort of vessel that the UK should have bought instead of Albion, Bulwark & Ocean.

As for the RAN not deleting the ramp, then perhaps they realise that making any changes to an off the shelf design COSTS. Make changes, bring money. If you haven't go the money then leave well alone.

Kiev - through deck cruiser.... useful if you are intending to transit into the Med from the Black Sea, as I recall.

By the way, any chance of changing that fighter's nickname, 'Dave B' is becoming a term of abuse, and I'm beginning to feel a tad apprehensive....

Dave (B)

Dave C is a problem for some people too but the PM seems to like it:E

Fair point,
I'd REALLY hate to be confused with Dave C these days - I thought G Brown was a complete numpty, but I'm beginning to wonder what planet Dave C is living on.

Dave

dave

Little wonder when HMG hits us with this kind of nonsense on a regular basis when preaching austerity:ugh:

BBC News - Vince Cable's Murdoch gaffe 'to cost £300,000'

Try again... the Japanese constitution says no such thing!

Here... read it for yourself.

THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN

And the legal interpretation that allows a military that isn't a military:
I. Constitution of Japan and Right of Self-Defense

The 16DDH class are designed with a deck that cannot deal with the heat from the F-35 rear nozzle, and without the other support features needed for such an aircraft... it was designed for ASW helos only.


The 22DDH class, now... that's where the questions arise:
22DDH Class

foreground 16DDH, background 22DDH.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...comparison.jpg

Absolutely!

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/e29...a08045_landing

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5011/...679dcd7c_z.jpg

Interesting use of a portacabin for the bridge structure Flyingblind, but how on earth will they get the Admiral of the Fleet, Admiral, Vice Admiral, Rear Admiral, Commodore and Captain in that, along with the other bods, such as the driver....... whatever he is called in navyspeak ;)