Talk:Canberra-class landing helicopter dock

Fixed wing aircraft and the Multi-Purpose vessels

According to a contact I have in the navy it won't happen unless there is a shake up in the top levels of Defence. We are a defence force not a attack force... there is no need for that capability (or so I am told) --Rob 08:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the possibility of operating F-35 or similar aircraft from the Multi-Purpose vessels, and the picture of a "F-35 in the colours of the Royal Australian Navy" appears on every Wikipedia entry which touches on the ships. Is there any evidence that this is more than speculation and wishful thinking? The request for tender which was issued for the ships (ie, the document which sets the conditions which will determine which design is selected) does not appear to specify that the ships be able to operate anything but helicopters. As a result, it seems unlikely that the ships will actually be capable of operating F-35s. --Nick Dowling 11:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It may well be wishful thinking or maybe not. I believe the navy wanted to get it's fixed wing FAA capability back for a long time and may well be doing it by stealth, if you know what I mean. We get what the navy tells us is a large amphibious ship but as proven ships like this have the capability to do other roles too like Sea Control. If I remember correctly,from an article I saw in some magazine (dunno wheter it was Navy Magazine or in the newspapers) air defence for the ship and the amphib task force would be solely the preserve of the Air Warfare Destroyers while supposedly we rely on land based air to provide for air support, which really does not make sense at all if you look at it. Actually it sounds ridiculous. With these points in mind maybe it's not wishful thinking after all eh? If these ships are to operate F-35's their decks better be able to withstand direct jet blasts as the main engine nozzle tilts downward. I'd like to see fixed-wing avation return to the navy personally. You know, if we really were a Defence Force we should not have purchased the F-111 all those years ago in the first place. The only concession we made to make us look less of a threat to our neighbours (if we even were a threat at all) was that we didn't purchase tankers with flying-boom technology until now. Come to think of it, now that we are getting flying boom refueling tankers and the fact that we are getting C-17 Strategic Airlifters as well makes me think more of the likelyhood of the Navy purchasing F-35B's. Dervish6 15:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't the navy requested a third be built to carry F-35B? LamontCranston (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the fixed wing matter.. information is somewhat sketchy, I heard through some blog about Nov. that two ships would eventually be delivered with Fixed Wing capability in tact, then another site stating the opposite, like the offcial position, then some magzine veiling refferences to it being redress and the RAN getting fixed wing.. then something different.. and so and so forth. There's only one key piece of evidence I would suggest lends any validity to the carrier theory. That is that the latest RAN media releases in regards to Navy 2015 and so forth, all present tantilising insight into a very small small potential that the fixed issue might have finally been negotiated in the RAN's favour, by the 'blink and you'll miss'em' references the Navy's own media makes to greater intergration with BOTH the RAR and RAAF.. the latter being the key. *IF* The RAN and the RAAF are intergrated thanks to their latest newest systems... the perhaps its worth keeping some informaiton about the fixed wing capbilites.. as these ships are the Navy's newest big toys.. whats the RAAF's? F-35's... and given what that aricraft is capable of doing and what is MEANT to be able to do (even if there speculation now of less than adequate all round performance in all the areas).. then it might be barely, BARELY plausable that the ADF internally is working on something, or knows something no publically released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apis4 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Any chance you could supply links to those documents you refer to? I've blinked and missed them, and would be interested in seeing what they say. As far as I know, the party line from the RAN and the Government has consistently been "Yes, the Canberras are theoretically capable of operating fixed-wing aircraft. No, we will not be doing so". I'm pretty sure the RAAF are supplying air traffic controllers to the ships, but I'm imagining that "integration" in this context means closer working together because of this, as historically the RAN and the RAAF have not got along well. The version of the F-35 being acquired by the RAAF is the A version, which is neither STOVL- (B) or carrier- (C) capable, so could not operate from the ships. -- saberwyn 22:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I got one link.. trawling yt and other places now, I am not an expert..or even an armchair one, I only bothered with this page because of the apprent uncertainty, or, at least, small number insiting the fixed wing thing, in regards to these vessels.. I came looking for truth, though only to find all this division here too, perhaps someone from the RAN could step in and end debate.. anyway.. heres one link.. they talk very specifically about this class of ship, about 3/4 s through, in regards to intergration, and I couldnt help but think it was rather ambiguous, as to what 'intergration' means, in fact the more I look, the more I get the sense that it suits the RAN to have no clarity on the matter... heres one link to one video.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQDTkSu3JM but I stumbled across others, I will endeavour to find them. As for blog and what not web sites stating one thing, and another stating another.. well..you cant miss'em... I will try again to find the sources, all relatively dubious and unoffcial, but seriously, for an example of the massive confusion and argument on the issue.. just look above, and below. I actually only put my previous contribution in, in the hope that some savvy snoop with a more deeper interest than me might have sniffed out if there was something in that or not. Personally.. I just wish all parties would come, carte blanche, including the 'observers' and 'civilian experts' and agree, completely, on this matter.. so any one like me can research these vessels, and their role, and have no confusion at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apis4 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the article, the Navy has stated repeatedly that it's not intending to operate fixed wing aircraft off the Canberras, so there's no mystery about this. The sources of speculation about operating F-35Bs from the ships are largely armchair admirals and other people with no official role. Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent fixed wing purge

After several years of civil debate in this article it looks like one user has removed nearly all fixed wing ops information including well cited official requests from the RAN to the sitting government for a third ship of the class to be fitted as and aircraft carrier with a wing of F-35B's and made it appear that the RAN has never desired such equipment, I am only an IP address so a user with an account will have to address this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.211.202 (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I removed much of the content regarding fixed wing operations is that it was overemphasised in regards to the rest of the information on the Canberra class (over 3/4 of the content relating to aviation, and 1/5 to 1/4 of the entire article). The issue has come up on several occasions, but the line from the Government and the RAN is that the Canberras were never required to be fixed-wing capable, and that Australian fixed-wing aircraft will not operate off the ships for the foreseeable future. The "official request" for a third, carrier Canberra was actually a blue-sky wishlist by a retiring admiral which got picked up by the media, then was denied by the Govt and the RAN shortly after it became public. -- saberwyn 20:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to document info on this topic from https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-canberra-class-lhds-03384/

May 17/14: Defence Minister David Johnston tells The Weekend West that Australia is still considering the F-35B STOVL naval stealth fighter: “Now that aircraft is more expensive, does not have the range but it’s an option that has been considered from day one…. The deck strength is there [on the Canberra Class LHDs] for such an aircraft,” he said.” Perhaps digging back into history and returning some of the topical information and cites would be appropriate considering the above quote and the additional page info added since the ships have arrived for completion?

I'm not seeing much evidence to support Johnston's claim that the F-35B has always been under consideration. Recent articles like this SMH one give the impression that the defence force has not thought of getting the B as a serious prospect (Wouldn't it be nice if we turned our troopships into aircraft carriers? Wouldn't it be nice if we painted the ships army green?), while this Aviation Australia article lists reasons why the ships are not designed for sustained fixed-wing operations.

Based on this version of the article (the last before the removal of much of the F-35 content), the following sources are cited as discussing the F35 as a prospect for the LHDs

• a Minister of Defence press release that doesn't actually say anything about any fixed wing aviation,
• a JCDFAT report which recommended that the government consider acquiring some Bs when the decision to buy F-35s or not rolled around two years later, if the STOVL version met design specifications, which at the time it wasn't (chapter 5, pp 91, 94-5)
• The carrier wishlist news article mentioned above

and a whole lot of "But it looks like a carrier"

Conversation below at #Third Canberra class, not a wish list? may be of relevance -- saberwyn 13:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, various sources over the years have stated that the RAN long-ago ruled out using the ships as carriers or buying F-35s. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)\

Canberra class

I have seen the Australian Multi-Purpose vessel called the Canberra Class on several occasions, including by the RAN. Is this the official name of the class or is it being called this because the first ship is named Canberra. Hossen27 03:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

RAN ship classes are always derived from the name of the first ship in the class (the 'name ship') so 'Canberra Class' will be the official designation of these ships. --Nick Dowling 07:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thought so, so shold we change the name of the article or should we wait. Hossen27 08:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the name of the article should be changed. The 'Multi-purpose vessel' designation is out of date anyway - this project now always seems to be called the 'Large Amphibious Ships project'. --Nick Dowling 08:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What should the article be called then. Canberra class What. Hossen27 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Canberra Class large amphibious ship for now? - this can be changed when an offical designation of the ship type is announced (eg, LHA, LHD, etc). --Nick Dowling 09:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah agree Canberra class large amphibious ship is fine, with no capitalisation on class. Hossen27 09:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Article title

Nick, I'm curious as to the reasoning behind the move from Canberra class large amphibious ship to Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock. I'm not certain of the naming conventions for these types of class ships, but the Wasp class page is at Wasp class amphibious assault ship, not "Wasp class Landing Helicopter Dock". Similarly, we have the Tarawa class amphibious assault ship and Iwo Jima class amphibious assault ship. To my knowledge, the reason this page was previously at Canberra class large amphibious ship is that this is the term used in most RAN material to this point, and that is is not just an LHD. It is replacing the LPAs and LSH in the RAN, thus covering roles often performed by different ship types. Most of the LPD class articles use Amphibious transport dock in the name, and most of the LSD articles use Dock landing ship in the name, as these are the names of the articles covering those types. It doesn't really matter which way we go on this, as long as we follow consistency. I'm not that familiar with WPSHIPS' naming conventions, so I'm just assuming that the majority of the existing articles already follow the correct pattern. Most of the RAN amphib ships appear to follow their own (or no) pattern, however. - BillCJ (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill, all publications now call these ships the 'Canberra class LHDs' - the 'large amphibious ship' designation was dropped after the decision on what ship design to purchase was made and is no longer used in official sources or the media. I did look into what other similar classes of amphibious ships are called before making the move, but didn't want to call these ships the 'Canberra class amphibious assault ship' as that designation simply isn't used in any published sources I've seen. 'Canberra class LHD' was also unsatisfactory as 'LHD' is an obscure term for non-specialists. As such, I think that this is the best option per WP:NAME. The preceeding RAN class is the Kanimbla class landing platform amphibious and I thought that was the best precedent. I capitalised 'Landing Helicopter Dock' as that's how it appears on Australian Department of Defence websites, though I'm not sure that it's consistent with general Wikipedia naming conventions. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's what they are called, but an LHD is a type of "amphibious assault ships", and how the other similar classes are generally listed here for consistency. The RN didn't call the Invincible class "aircraft carriers" for years, but no one seriously thought they were actually "cruisers", "through-deck" or otherwise. I'll bring this up at WPSHIPS for clarification on applying the naming conventions, and if to see if there's a desire for consistency. Btw, with most short term or less active editors, I'd have just reverted the move as non-consensual, but that's certainly not the way to handle disputes with long-time editors in good standing. However, I probably will propose a move at some point, depending on the answers at WPSHIPS, and whether or not there are changes made to the conventions for these types. Who knows - I might be proposing a move for the Wasp class page to Wasp class Landing Helicopter Dock instead! It really doesn't matter to me what we use, as long as we're as consistent as reasonably possible for similar types. - BillCJ (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries Bill - I probably should have discussed the move first, but I think that this is a no-brainer given that no sources call the ships 'amphibious assault ships' and the use of 'large amphibious ship' was only ever a place-holder until a designation was announced (see above). As always, I appreciate your attention to detail and consultative editing style. I'm not fussed about the final name either - redirects can take care of any confusion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the wishlist

Not interested in an edit war, so I'm not going to make the edit myself, for fear of Nick Dowling changing it again. However: the article I posted from the Herald Sun/News.com.au points out the RAN interest in operating fixed wing aircraft off the Canberra-class, and the government's apparent refusal to do so. While someone obsessive might insist the lack of interest in the government doesn't necessarily mean the move hasn't gone ahead, what does is the budget papers, 2008-9. They indicate that far from adding $4b to the defense budget to provide for this capacity, the government has effectively reduced the increases in real spending on defense to 2016. Thus, the move never went ahead. That clarification should be made. 59.167.72.69 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The article does mention that the RAN aparantly asked for a third ship and F-35B aircraft to fly off it but that the government didn't like the idea - I'm not sure what else there is too add at this stage? It would be original research to conclude from this year's budget papers that the proposal has gotten the thumbs down through - it could still be funded in future years or even be funded this year from outside the annual budget process. While it seems hugely unlikely that the government would agree to a third ship and F-35Bs, there is a new Defence white paper being developed and which will guide the ADF's force structure, so it's unlikely that any big decisions will be made before its finalised late this year or early next year. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the Spanish design

Are there any sources specifying why the Spanish design was selected over the French design? I'm working on a userspace rewrite for the Mistral class (the French design), and a sourced sentance or two on why the design was turned down would improve the content there. -- saberwyn 06:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember seeing anything coherent. Then-Defence Minister Brendan Nelson's press release on the decision isn't very helpful: [1] The limited speculation I did see in the Defence press was that there wasn't much seperating the two designs, and it was felt that a ship with a ski-jump would be a better long-term investment and there were benefits from ordering these ships and the air warfare destroyers from the same company. The July 2007 edition of Asia-Pacific Defence reporter might have something - I'll see if I can dig this up if you like. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if this section was rewritten to make it clearer that the Spanish design was successful (and why); I had no idea which it was until I saw the comment above. Adzze (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't help with the why, but I hope my recent change makes it clearer which tender was successful. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Capability

Transferred updated and cited deck space and hangar information from the Spanish BPE article including corrected aircraft capacity, edited to show that it is stats for the Spanish version of the ship, which I assume should be the same size and general layout. It still needs better clarity than what I did to not make it incorrectly appear that the RAN will be operating Harriers, F-35B, Ospreys, and Chinooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.246.212 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That is unnecessary detail for this article, as the Canberras are not intended to operate VSTOL aircraft. As this info is arleady on the Spanish LH article, there's no reason to repeat it here, especially if you "assume should be the same size and general layout". - BilCat (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit was to clarify the deck space available for operating aircraft of different sizes most importantly including helicopters of the RAN and allied nations also maximum hangar space both of which are un-cited and possibly incorrect at several points in the article against current information with Spanish Armada website citation. I was requesting above, here in talk a more clear way to state the documented information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.246.212 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All the figures I've seen for the Canberra class ships' aviation capacity are actually much smaller than those of the Spanish ship, so it seems that there will be differences in the division of internal space between aircraft hangers and vehicle decks between the two designs. That said, there is no clear information on how many aircraft the Canberra class will be capable of carrying... Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Canberra Class LHD will be the same layout as the JC1 for the light vechicle deck and the hangar, no change, to suggest otherwise suggest's a lack of understanding of the flexibility of these ships and how they have been designed. The divider between the two can be opened up so that either the light vehicle deck can be expanded to carry more or in the other option the hangar can be expanded to carry more aircraft. The only real difference with the entire ship will be the layout of the living spaces (IE: The bunk layout) and the internal makeup/layout of the superstructure will be very different from the Spanish version. Article also incorrectly states that CH-47 is too big for the hangar, this is partially incorrect, they can be stored and transported in the hangar/light vechicle deck, however prior to this they must have rotor's removed, so it is a transportation option only — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.48.18 (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Have changed article to correctly reflect aviation capability. The Canberra Class/Juan Carlos have 4 deck spots for the CH-47 and they can fit into the hangar, but only with the rotors removed. They also have one spot aft on the flight deck to operate V-22. A search will show this capability and plenty of pictures of the Chinooks inside the hangar and on the aft lift, try looking at www.fotosdebarcos.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussienscale (talk • contribs) 08:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm respectfully reverting to the previous, cited content. Despite the similaries and commonalities between Juan Carlos I and the Canberra's, the capabilities and operations of one should not be assumed to be identical to the other, unless sources can be provided stating the Aussie ships have this capability. If reliable, published sources have stated that Canberra and Adelaide are capable and intended to operate V-22s and transport partially disassembled Chinooks, please provide. -- saberwyn 10:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a stated capability of the ship, you obviously don't understand that, if you take that stance then half the article should be deleted ? The ship has 4 spots for the operation of Chinook's, it can carry them in the hangar with the rotor's removed for transportation, they have one spot aft for the operation of the V-22's, as they also have the ability/capability to operate the JSF, but since Australia is not getting the B then you may as well delete that whole part as well ? Isn't that the point of having a section titled "Design and Capabilities" ? not intended use ? but if you would like and official source then you have a lot of info on this article to fix :) http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/lhd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussienscale (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a reliable, puiblished source stating updated information about the class. I admit I've been avoiding the RAN site where possible since their big move a couple of months ago... every time I checked it, it seemed a lot of content was missing or being uploaded piecemeal. Between now and the weekend, I will begin work on updating the article to reflect the updated information. -- saberwyn 08:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Pennant number switcheroo

According to an article published in Jane's Navy International in February 2010, the pennants for Canberra (LHD 01), and Adelaide (LHD 02) have been switched, to reflect the pennants of their frigate predecessors. Canberra is still lead ship, and will be the first in service. The source is:

• Fish, Tim (5 February 2010). "Steel cut for second Australian LHD". Jane's Navy International.

How do we reflect this in the article? -- saberwyn 01:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would exercise caution here. I think I would want to see an official RAN source before I acted. This is not to suggest that Jane's Navy International is not a reliable source, but nevertheless even reliable sources get it wrong sometimes. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jane's Navy International is a very reliable source, so it should be incorporated. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards waiting until the RAN states it, then using Jane's as an independant source. The recent issue of The Navy magazine was still using the 'old' pennants, and the RAN website is yet to specify which pennant will marry up to which name. -- saberwyn 07:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And the DoD news release today for the launching gives Canberra 01 and Adelaide 02. Looks like Mr Fish of JNI may have been misinformed. -- saberwyn 05:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The matter complicates. In the most recent issue of Australian Warship magazine (Issue 64), Joe Straczek claims that the "Canberra-class pennants match Adelaide-class pennants" plan is still on the cards. At the launch of Canberra, the hull bore "02" painted near the stern[2], and Straczek says "The Joint Amphibious Capability Implementation Team had decided to keep the ship's numbers the same as the name/number combinations assigned to the Adelaide class".

In another part of the magazine, the claim is made that Australia was originally suggested by the RAN as the name for an LHD. The paperwork visited the Minister for Defence's office before reaching the Governor-General for formal approval of the selected names, and its implied (although not outright stated, that the Minister, Senator Robert Hill, wanted Australia named after his home town instead, and got what he wanted. I'm not entirely sure how reliable these claims are, because the article has no declared author, is tagged as "Opinion" (although presumabley that of the magazine's editor, Ross Gillett), and misidentifies the Senator as 'David' Hill. -- saberwyn 05:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Straczek, Joe (2011). "Names and Numbers". Australian Warship (64). Topmill: 44–6.

It's probably a reliable source, but I agree that it would be best to wait until we see what the RAN paints on the side of these ships. The claim that one of the ships came close to being called Australia seems a bit dubious to me, though I guess it's possible. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• From Navy News. Not perfect, but usable -- saberwyn 04:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Radar System

This from a Saab press release on the Giraffe AMB radar just ordered for the Canberra class ships GIRAFFE_Radar http://www.swedishwire.com/press-releases/5243-saab-saab-receives-an-order-for-radar-system-to-australia

Giraffe AMB is a flexible series of modular surveillance systems. Fully fitted, the system includes capabilities for simultaneous air defence, air and sea surveillance, air/land integration, military air traffic control and rocket, artillery and mortar alert. The system is part of Saab's continuously evolving radar program and provides highest performance for critical targets and proven reliability. Giraffe has become the radar of choice for armed forces worldwide, whether part of vital point protection or area air defence solutions. The Giraffe is in current production and in use with armed forces of Sweden, France, Estonia and the UK amongst others.

Saab's naval surveillance radar Sea Giraffe is in operational service on the Australian and New Zealand Anzac Class frigates and the more advanced Sea Giraffe AMB is being supplied for the Australian Canberra class amphibious ships.

I can see no reason that this system could not be used for fixed wing air control in addition to helicopter as this is part of the standard programming. This contradicts a statement on the page about the planned radar being unable to handle F-35B traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.40.43 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential pagemove

See Talk:HMAS Adelaide (LHD 02)#Requested move. -- saberwyn 10:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Images of actual ships available from RAN website

http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/grid.fwx?ArchiveID=5003&Search=12130483 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.195.37 (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

They are nice photos. Unfortunately, they are copyright, so we can't use them here. On a related note, does anyone know the date that the in-transit hull of Canberra arrives in Melbourne? I'd love to get a few days off work to get some (wiki-compatible) pics of the arrival. -- saberwyn 10:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/canberra-class-landing-helicopter-docks-lhds/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Third Canberra class, not a wish list?

Recent media speculation would have you believe that Tony Abbott is for certifying the Canberra class to carry aircraft. I know, crystal balling and all particularly surrounding the longevity of the current government, however, it is something to address --101.162.146.147 (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budget-2014/tony-abbott-aims-for-aircraft-carriers/story-fnmdbx1i-1226927573598#

I'll believe the politicians making the 'don't-look-at-the-budget' noise when the navy confirms that order has been placed with the manufacturer. That said, absolutely zero of the media discussion I've seen so far on the issue is advocating a third carrier-Canberra, but is talking about possibly, maybe adding fixed-wing fighters to the existing two. -- saberwyn 08:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Various experts at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have recently posted on why F-35Bs are pretty unlikely on the institute's blog at http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/ (the short version is that they would deliver relatively little 'bang for the buck' given how expensive this capability would be and the trade offs - including the loss of the LHDs as troop ships - which would have to be accepted). I certainly wouldn't rule it out given that the PM seems interested in the idea, but its hard to see the ADF endorsing it (which is what ultimately killed off the carrier replacement project in the 1980s: the money needed to sustain the capability could be better spend on other parts of the military). Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

According to this SMH article about Abbott ordering the researchers for the 2015 Defence White Paper to investigate acquiring the F-35B and adapting the Canberras for carrier ops, it quotes the Chief of Air Force as saying the RAAF hadn't asked for the B, but was open to the idea being considered amongst all the other ideas being considered for the white paper, while the Chief of Navy said "This has been a fairly superficial examination up until now because there hasn't been a serious consideration of this capability going into the ship." This Aviation Australia article (cited in the article) mentions some of the significant overhauls and operational changes that would be required for sustained fixed-wing aviation. -- saberwyn 13:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Potential source

Just chucking this here as a potential source

• Seidel, Jane (19 November 2014). "Australian Strategic Policy Institute raises doubts over Abbott Government plan to rebuild newest warships". The Courier Mail. Retrieved 22 November 2014.
• McPhedran, Ian. "The Australian Navy's game-changing $1.5 billion warship". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 27 November 2014.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Canberra-class landing helicopter dock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320184151/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Semaphore_2007_14.pdf to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Semaphore_2007_14.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706124110/http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=55&pubtype=6 to http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=55&pubtype=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151102212348/http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/06/03/minister-for-defence-stephen-smith-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-jason-clare-joint-media-release-ocean-shield-the-navys-newest-humanitarian-and-disaster-relief-vessel/ to http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/06/03/minister-for-defence-stephen-smith-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-jason-clare-joint-media-release-ocean-shield-the-navys-newest-humanitarian-and-disaster-relief-vessel/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Canberra-class : more a subclass than a class

This Canberra-class is obviously a subclass of the Juan Carlos I-class. The complete subject organisation should be review : for example, the title "Spanish ship Juan Carlos I" doesn't look very adapted at the common way to name a ship at Wikipedia. Borvan53 (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

A vast number of sources describe the ships as being the 'Canberra' class (including the Royal Australian Navy [3]), and the article notes that it's only a fairly minor variant of the original. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Dates

In the Ships section there is a table listing dates for laid down, launched, & commissioned. The table show a extremely lengthy time from Launched to Commissioned. That can be easily explained. the laid down & launched events occurred in Spain, then the ships were transported to Australia for the remainder of the work. If possible; adding the dates for the transport might be helpful Wfoj3 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This is strange, absolutely no mention of serious design flaws/problems 2017-2021

This is strange, absolutely no mention of serious design flaws/problems between 2017 and 2021, exactly why is that? It’s not as if these were minor problems, the issues were so serious that the Spanish builders had to reimburse the Australian government.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The references you add don’t back up what you are saying. Please find references to cover the new content. I’ve removed the strongest language (e.g. multimillion dollar cost and “catastrophic” engine failures. Also per Wikipedia manual of style, there shouldn’t be content in the lead/intro that is not in the main body. In this case you would summarise the issues in the lead and go into detail in the main body. Let me know if I can help with anything. Mark83 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This citation confirms that Siemens Azema thrusters were the problem: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/australian-canberra-class-ships-may-design-faults/ and this source confirms reimbursement: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-22/navy-vessels-ship-shape-after-years-of-engine-problems/11034882 best regards, Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't though:

• The first reference is quite discursive, and does not definitively blame Siemens. "...the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) today conceded that the LHD’s may have design flaw with the engine systems. In the mean time, Engineers are still trying to identify what is causing problems with the “azimuth” propulsion system on board the more than a billion dollar a piece ships which have been found to have metal fragments in the engine lubricant."
• The second mentions a reimbursement, but does not say whether this is from Navantia, BAE, Siemens, or some combination of those companies. We can't assume either that or the level of compensation.

Just to stress, I'm all for including information on this as long as we stick to the content of references. Feel free to do that. But it's not correct to infer things from references, that's into the realm of original research, i.e. "this includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Happy to discuss further or answer any queries you have on this. Mark83 (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

? BAE was contracted to supply/fit comms and weapons and Navantia the design and vessel’s hull manufacture/fit which leaves Siemens. The citations state clearly that the problems were with the propulsion system which was supplied by Siemens, here is secondary source which was linked within the above source confirming same: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/largest-ships-unable-to-join-cyclone-debbie-emergency-response/8391574 and finally, a source confirming the settlement with Navantia was related to the Siemens Azimuth thrusters: https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/sea/defence-settles-with-navantia-on-lhds. As I understand it, what is usual with defence contracts is the settlement is with the contractor who then recovers the payment from the sub-contractor, in this case Siemens. Again, what is really strange about this article was that there was never any mention of the significant problems and incidents with both ships of the class and still, having made editors aware of the problems with both ships the article remains silent on the issue. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by volunteers. There aren't many people working on Australian warship articles at present, and pretty much all the articles on current RAN warships are years out of date as a result. If you see something missing, add it rather than post weird suggestions that Wikipedia is part of a cover up. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Why the question mark? So where we’ve got to is that the Australian government claimed against Navantia? That is not how the original post on the article represented the issue, hence the queries. It’s not ok to make inferences (e.g “which leave Siemens”) or leave it vague so that the reader has to make inferences. Mark83 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Nick-D:. And I've been clear, I'm not acting as a 'gate-keeper' here - e.g. on 8 April I said: "Just to stress, I'm all for including information on this as long as we stick to the content of references. Feel free to do that." What you wrote originally was not backed up by the references. This discussion has shaken out more detail (and references), so feel free to add a verifiable summary of the issue. (Just please remember my point about the lead being a short summary, and the main body should contain the full detail). Mark83 (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)