"U.K., Canada Discuss Joint Frigate Development"

[MarkOttawa]

As for foreign designs (and some construction):

Navy's biggest ship ever launches (with photo gallery)
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glanceview/148881/navys-biggest-ship-ever-launches.glance

The navy's first amphibious landing ship, and the largest ship it has ever had, was launched in Spain overnight.

The ship, named HMAS Canberra, is able to carry helicopters, tanks and other heavy equipment, with a length of 230m and a displacement of 27,500 tonnes.

The hull is going to be shipped to a shipyard in Victoria where the island structure and flight deck will be installed...

Honk!  Honk!  More:
http://www.hmascanberra.com/history/nushipcanberra.html

...

            HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide

The Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock are new amphibious assault ships being developed for the Royal Australian Navy. The Australian Government has approved a AU$3 billion project to build two LHDs, which will have air support, amphibious assault, transport and command centre roles. They are planned to replace in turn HMAS Tobruk and one of the RAN's two current Kanimbla class vessels...

Note the ski-jump even though the Aussies are planning to buy the F-35A.  For allied aircraft?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Note the ski-jump even though the Aussies are planning to buy the F-35A.  For allied aircraft?

Maybe easier for take off with full missions load.

 

[Haletown]

As for foreign designs (and some construction):

Navy's biggest ship ever launches (with photo gallery)
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glanceview/148881/navys-biggest-ship-ever-launches.glance

Honk!  Honk!  More:

Mark
Ottawa

Maybe we should suggest, in the spirit of Commonwealth solidarity, that they consider renaming their nice new ship the HMAS Ricky's Big Honker?


Aussies have a very good sense of humor    ;D

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Re: The ski jump ramp: If you look at the left most ship in the drawing, it looks like a winged drone just took off from her.

However, the main idea for the Australians is to be in a position to work with two specific allies: The Indians, who have jump jets, and the US Marines, who also have them. Besides, its easier to build it in now than to refit it in later if they acquire some jump jets of any sort.

In the spirit of commonwealth solidarity, what I would suggest, is that we acquire two of the same class also - to "inter-operate" with the Aussies. I am sure some of us Navy types would love an exchange posting down under. .

 

[CougarKing]

As for foreign designs (and some construction):

Navy's biggest ship ever launches (with photo gallery)
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glanceview/148881/navys-biggest-ship-ever-launches.glance

Honk!  Honk!  More:
http://www.hmascanberra.com/history/nushipcanberra.html

Note the ski-jump even though the Aussies are planning to buy the F-35A.  For allied aircraft?

Mark
Ottawa

Mark,

Pics of the ship before the launching ceremony are also at this other thread (link).

 

[MarkOttawa]

S.M.A.: Thanks, good pix, good the Spanish-designed destroyers mentioned too.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I can see a lot of cooperative work that can be done without cutting steel in another country. Selection and testing of hull designs, weapon system testing, building techniques, machinery selection and testing.

 

[willellis]

The fact that there are talks between the UK and CAN is only great news. Just because they are talking about a uniform design, does not mean that the ships are going to be built in the UK. We are very capable of building our own as the past has proven, and I highly doubt that any government in Canada could afford to go back on the promise that has been made to our shipbuilders.

Combining the knowledge from a more modern navy and our own could provide us with many new ideas that could help cut cost in the R&D department. On a further note, just because they are the same base design, it does not mean that they have to have the same emitters and weapons. We can have a distinctly Canadian configuration even if the Brits and others use the same blue prints to build their hulls.

 

[willellis]

Maybe easier for take off with full missions load.

The F35s have a VTOL variant so I don't think it would matter.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The F35s have a VTOL variant so I don't think it would matter.

Well if it helps with burning less fuel on takeoff I would be inclined to disagree that it would definitely matter.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, the ski-jump makes a huge difference on take-off weight. The jump-jet with a short roll-off and ramp can carry almost 50% more ordonance. That is why all nations that operate jump jets have ramps on their ships, except the Americans, who only operate them in support of Marines from the large amphibs anyway and have a different variant of the Harrier.

One problem in peacetime though, is that even with the reduced fuel load, the Harriers are too heavy for vertical landing if they still carry the full ordonance load coming back - so if you loaded them up to the hilt for roll-off take-off, they have to ditch some ordonance before landing - expensive!

And Willelis, we know that the F-35 has a STOVL variant (way behind schedule and with major "theeting" problems), but the Australians are not down as having purchased any at this point and they do not operate Harriers. So that aspect of operation does not seem to interest them at this point.

One must also consider that it is possible the ski-jump on the CANBERRA is just there because it is a feature of the JUAN-CARLOS I that served as its base model and it was easier engineering not to modify it.

 

[willellis]

Fair enough. I assumed that since they are planning on buying F35s, that in conjunction with the new ship photos, the B variant would make sense.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It was a fair assumption on your part. Its just that Australia has made no "noise" in that direction. I suspect that when (if?) the F35B comes on line and some can be had at a reasonably low price (post US run, for instance), they are already secretly plannig on getting a few for the CANBERRA's. They just have kept it under tight wrap.

 

[aesop081]

The F35s have a VTOL variant so I don't think it would matter.

It does matter. in fact, it matters very significantly.

All aircraft have a maximum weight at which they can get off the ground. The trade off is usually between fuel and stores. More fuel (for range) means less weapons, more weapons ( for effect) means less fuel can be carried. SVTOL aircraft are particularly susceptible to this as an engine can only generate so much power to get an aircraft off the ground in the vertical. The "ski jump" is an effectice compromise to allow aircraft to take off in short distances at higher gross weights.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

To specify CDN Aviator's answer even further: In the case of the Harriers, there is a difference in maximum take-off weight between the vertical mode an short take-off mode. The short take off maximum weight is about 50% greater than the vertical one. Also, the Harrier has a maximum vertical landing weight which is, in both cases lower than its maximum take off weight, thus the need to jettison something between take-off and landing IF you took off at full weight. When they do a vertical take-off, the lower fuel load is usually sufficient to permit a vertical landing, but in the short take-off mode, something more has to be gotten rid of: either because you fired it at someone or because you ditched it prior to landing. That is why the idea of ramp assisted short take-off with "trapped" landing (tail hook and wire) of STOVLs has been explored by some Navies lately, the Indian Navy foremost.

(CDN Aviator: How am I doing for sufficeint knowledge of STOVL ops to command a carrier?)

 

[Pat in Halifax]

To specify CDN Aviator's answer even further: In the case of the Harriers, there is a difference in maximum take-off weight between the vertical mode an short take-off mode. The short take off maximum weight is about 50% greater than the vertical one. Also, the Harrier has a maximum vertical landing weight which is, in both cases lower than its maximum take off weight, thus the need to jettison something between take-off and landing IF you took off at full weight. When they do a vertical take-off, the lower fuel load is usually sufficient to permit a vertical landing, but in the short take-off mode, something more has to be gotten rid of: either because you fired it at someone or because you ditched it prior to landing. That is why the idea of ramp assisted short take-off with "trapped" landing (tail hook and wire) of STOVLs has been explored by some Navies lately, the Indian Navy foremost.

(CDN Aviator: How am I doing for sufficeint knowledge of STOVL ops to command a carrier?)

Hey, You have my vote!...hmmm...are there any diesels on that thing...?

 

[aesop081]

I assumed

http://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/jsf.aspx

Australia is expected to acquire the F-35A CTOL variant and achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2014.

 

[willellis]

http://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/jsf.aspx

Just out of curiosity, how would a carrier variant make sense on a non catapult deck on an amphibious assault ship?


Btw, thanks for the lesson on the STOVL platforms!

 

[aesop081]

Just out of curiosity, how would a carrier variant make sense on a non catapult deck on an amphibious assault ship?

It would not. Note that the RAAF is planing to equip with the "A" model and that it s not a conventional carrier model. It is a land-based fighter.

 

[willellis]

Little confused. You said it was the CTOL variant in you last quote. I did some browsing as well and found that it is indeed the A and not the C. Thanks.