stryker NZ
New Member
oh my mistake i didnt relise there was such a displacement difference between the two vessels
Japenese 13,500 ton helicopter destroyers
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
oh my mistake i didnt relise there was such a displacement difference between the two vessels
Australia is buying the 2nd largest LHD on the market.
But even the mistral which was also concidered (20,000t) isn't big enough to operate the F-35. However there are carriers of the DDH size that operate the harrier's. But the F-35 is twice the weight and a little bit larger.
Its quiet likely that Spain will operate F-35's from its LHD as the F-35 is too big for its current carrier.
Key areas of weakness for the Canberra LHD operating as a carrier:
-Lack of aircraft maintence facilities/workshop (f-35 reduces this need with long life engines, smart maintence, could be added etc).
-Lack of general bunkerage (fuel/weapons - you would need dedicated storeage for these could be done if wanted)
While it could be done, it would take away from the primary aim of the ships, which is to land ~3,000 troops and equipment.
But even the mistral which was also concidered (20,000t) isn't big enough to operate the F-35. However there are carriers of the DDH size that operate the harrier's. But the F-35 is twice the weight and a little bit larger.
Its quiet likely that Spain will operate F-35's from its LHD as the F-35 is too big for its current carrier.
Key areas of weakness for the Canberra LHD operating as a carrier:
-Lack of aircraft maintence facilities/workshop (f-35 reduces this need with long life engines, smart maintence, could be added etc).
-Lack of general bunkerage (fuel/weapons - you would need dedicated storeage for these could be done if wanted)
While it could be done, it would take away from the primary aim of the ships, which is to land ~3,000 troops and equipment.
Third-largest, if we count in carrier configuration (Cavour is bigger than the BPE's 24,000-ton carrier config; BPE has that lighter displacement so its single turbine can push it faster for higher MTOWs).
Well, theres not much in it. Displacement difference between cavour and BPE in carrier is very marginal. Given the BPE isn't yet complete the difference remains to be seen. It could end up being <1,000t (given additional carrier modifications), however I think the Cavour is still slightly bigger. Both are still way bigger than the DDH.
In Australian service operating in amphibious mode the Canberra class will displace greater than 28,500 tons. Some are claiming 30,700 tons (wikipedia). There maybe additional modifications to improve this including increasing its dry displacement. Perhaps why the cost of the Canberras will be greater than the spanish service ships, by a lot.
But of course the Canberra class is not a carrier, its a LHD. If Australia wanted a carrier, it would proberly want something that could launch superhornets and F-35C's.
Given that HMAS Australia isn't (deliberately) being used for the LHD, it is possible, that sometime in the future a ship larger than the LHD could be procured.
In Australian service operating in amphibious mode the Canberra class will displace greater than 28,500 tons. Some are claiming 30,700 tons (wikipedia). There maybe additional modifications to improve this including increasing its dry displacement. Perhaps why the cost of the Canberras will be greater than the spanish service ships, by a lot.
But of course the Canberra class is not a carrier, its a LHD. If Australia wanted a carrier, it would proberly want something that could launch superhornets and F-35C's.
Given that HMAS Australia isn't (deliberately) being used for the LHD, it is possible, that sometime in the future a ship larger than the LHD could be procured.
Last edited:
Then which one is second largest? Cavour isn't an LHD - no dock - though is designed to be able to operate effectively as an LPH.
Iirc it will have a ramp thingy for LCACs to drive onto though. Just no LCU/LCM. And the well deck was sacrificed for cost reasons, simple as that.
I am sure the British would sell a Queen Elizabeth class to Australia. But I don't think Australia's navy could man it.
If Australia was to get back into the carrier game (which is unlikely but remotely possible) I see two options:
A Elizabeth class carrier - 65,000ts. I belive the crewing requirements are 1,200 ish. Big, but still possible, Australia has manned vessels previously that required near simular numbers, just not for many years. But UK build, massive size and crew all results in a big price tag. But sheer power and having commonality with the poms would be big pluses.
A light Spainish carrier design of ~35-40,000t simular to Canberra class LHD. Crewing would be ~600. ~260 m long perhaps with an angled deck. Latent catapult capability (just) but certainly capable of STOBAR and STOVL, several LM2500 engines. It would be less than half a CVF to buy and half a CVF to run. Commonality with spain and simular features to the f-100 and LHD.
It is also possible that countries like Australia and Japan might concider something like a US built cruiser like Zumwalt. Loaded with Tomahawks SM3 and SM6 it would be an expensive inital purchase but on going cost would be far less than a carrier.
A Elizabeth class carrier - 65,000ts. I belive the crewing requirements are 1,200 ish. Big, but still possible, Australia has manned vessels previously that required near simular numbers, just not for many years. But UK build, massive size and crew all results in a big price tag. But sheer power and having commonality with the poms would be big pluses.
A light Spainish carrier design of ~35-40,000t simular to Canberra class LHD. Crewing would be ~600. ~260 m long perhaps with an angled deck. Latent catapult capability (just) but certainly capable of STOBAR and STOVL, several LM2500 engines. It would be less than half a CVF to buy and half a CVF to run. Commonality with spain and simular features to the f-100 and LHD.
It is also possible that countries like Australia and Japan might concider something like a US built cruiser like Zumwalt. Loaded with Tomahawks SM3 and SM6 it would be an expensive inital purchase but on going cost would be far less than a carrier.
trainedmonkey
New Member
Considering Australia was offered a modified Iwo Jima LPH before, how hard would it actually be to modify the Canberra class design into a proper STOVL carrier?
I can't see why Australia would need a carrier except for prestige. They already have a good navy that is very capable of defending themselves. Their Collins class boats are capable of sinking carriers, which will give their air force complete air superiority, and once they have that it will be very hard to stage any sort of amphibious assault or large missile strike. They also have enough escorts to convoy their oceanic trade. So i don't see the need for a carrier although a small escort carrier might not hurt.
If you were going to build a proper STOVL carrier you wouldn't start with an LHD hull. If you want a ship which can function as a reserve for your single STOVL carrier when the carrier is hors de combat, e.g. in refit, then IMO it's an excellent design, a good compromise. For that use, the Spanish navy intends to seal the dock, & install additional equipment to support the carrier role in the vehicle deck, for the duration of the carrier tour. The extra kit would be stored on shore normally.
I think a proper STOVL carrier should be faster. More wind over deck, for a start. That would mean a change to the hull (the stern is shaped that way for the dock) & propulsion, probably to something more like Cavour - so you might be better off starting with Cavour, & seeing how she could be improved, or changed to meet your requirement, rather than starting with the BPE design.
Last edited:
although wind over deck isn't as important STOVL as it is in CATOBAR so speed isn't quite so important. As illustrated by the RN in Norway you can have normal air ops while you are stainonary
Also im not sure about podded drives and their slightly suspect relibilitiy. [im thinking QE2 issues with large podded drives]. and there difficulty of reparing the damn things when at sea.
There have been bearing issues with some large pod drives but there are a lot at sea and the problems appear to have been resolved or fixes are being put in place. The podded system is proving increasingly popular with some operators in the cruise industry.
For military use it appears to offer great reduncancy as each pod is fully independent in its propulsion and azimuth drives. More to the point it is not tied to the E/R as is the case with shafted systems (unless the shaft is driven by an electric motors as is the case in some configurations). This allows you 'power stations' to be widely sperated further increasing surviviability of power supplies in the even of an accident or (in the case of a warship) combat damage
As a matter of interest any problems with bearing or stern glands are difficutl to fix at sea in either podded or shaft line configurations.
contedicavour
New Member
Despite the resurrection of this 2006 thread we've ended up talking of Australian LHDs again
By the way, the only thing I would change on my country's Cavour is the width. We could have built it larger and have massively increased storage capacity for F35s and EH101s. If we didn't, it's most likely because with 2 small carriers and a 40-45 F35s complement (if all goes fine and the Air Force orders some 20 -B version to complement the Navy's 22 F35Bs to be ordered) it wasn't worth enlarging the ship. So if one day Australia gets interested, think about this ...
cheers
By the way, the only thing I would change on my country's Cavour is the width. We could have built it larger and have massively increased storage capacity for F35s and EH101s. If we didn't, it's most likely because with 2 small carriers and a 40-45 F35s complement (if all goes fine and the Air Force orders some 20 -B version to complement the Navy's 22 F35Bs to be ordered) it wasn't worth enlarging the ship. So if one day Australia gets interested, think about this ...
cheers