Skip to comments.Launch of Second Canberra-Class light carrier for Australia
Posted on 07/06/2012 9:08:48 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced the launch of the second Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) at the Navantia shipyard in Spain.
The launch represented a major milestone in the shipbuilding process and was attended by the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs.
Australia is acquiring two amphibious ships for the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
The LHDs are the largest ships ever built for the Royal Australian Navy and will provide the ADF with one of the most capable and sophisticated amphibious deployment systems in the world.
The Canberra Class LHDs are bigger than Australias last aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne (II). When completed they will be more than 230 metres long, 27.5 metres high and weigh around 27,500 tonnes. Each ship can carry a combined armed battlegroup of more than 1100 personnel, 100 armoured vehicles and 12 helicopters and features a 40-bed hospital.
Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, as a subcontractor to BAE Systems Australia, has constructed and is fitting out the hulls of both amphibious ships.
The superstructure, combat and communications systems will be consolidated with the hulls in Australia at the BAE Systems shipyard in Williamstown, Victoria.
The arrival of the first amphibious ship hull at BAEs Williamstown dockyard is expected later this year.
When the hull arrives in Melbourne the complex task of marrying the superstructure, hull, combat system and communications system can commence, in preparation for delivery of the first ship to the Australian Defence Force in 2014.
Images of the launch can be found on the Navy Image Gallery
Same displacement as a WW2 Essex class CV.
From the photo I see the upshot bow characteristic of most British carriers, why has the US not adopted this profile ... or, why have the British chosen this over the flat deck of the US carriers? Is it because it is smaller then most US carriers and thus the need for the upthust in deck design?
It’s because they use the Sea Harrier Jump Jet which requires that shape bow. I don’t think you can use a steam-launch catapult and send a twenty ton F-18 Hornet from zero to 130 mph in two seconds with a bow like that.
Thanks for your input ... makes sense. Sounds like they have chosen to use this type of Jet for years to come otherwise a flat deck may be more prudent for future consideration, what with the cost of a carrier and all.
They need the ramp because they take off at lower speed than US jets, that use steam catapults or now the new electromagnetic catapults.
Something like WWII jeep carriers ... makes even more sense. Thanks for the education.
Why would the Australian Navy have designed it with a ski-jump ramp unless they wanted to have the option of flying Harriers or F-35s off them in the future?
Electromagnetic Catapults? Please elucidate. Or at the least, give me a link. I have never heard of such a technology.
Info here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEOXScdv3FE&feature=related
The newest carriers will have them. Just Google it. Steam is being replaced.
Also there are changes to the arrestor cables too, in the way they work. The new carriers have larger nuke engines and have a lot more power to deal with launches and new em weapons that will be coming online.
Correction: Its because they used to use the FA2 Sea Harrier, which was retired from service in 2006. Joint Force Harrier did not operate the Sea Harrier but did operate GR7s and GR9s until December 2010. The ski jump bow is not required for successful sea based Harrier operations as the Marine Corps has been demonstrating for four decades. However, the ski jump bow does allow for a considerably shorter take off run which is a benefit on ships which are much smaller than a CVN.
I dont think you can use a steam-launch catapult and send a twenty ton F-18 Hornet from zero to 130 mph in two seconds with a bow like that.
Accelerating to 130 mph would send the aircraft into the drink. You need to get to ~160 knots, ~184 mph, to achieve flight in a catapult launched conventional fixed wing aircraft. As the Soviets/Russians have demonstrated, ski jump bows can be used to launch conventional fixed wing aircraft at lower speeds without the use of a catapult.
The Harrier and the F-35B are indeed jet aircraft. Spain, which built this ship, will operate jet aircraft off of its deck just as they did with the Principe de Asturias. The Aussies will have the option of doing the same.
Thanks for the correction. I believe its the landing speed can’t be less than 130 mph or the aircraft stalls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.