Sydney was a lucky buy, and showed that the amphibious side of a "carrier" was proberly more valuable (and cheaper) than flying fast jets off them. Australia was one of the few countries that had an old carrier that used it in this way (because we had two).
Bay is certainly a capable ship. But she doesn't have anywhere near the aviation capabilities of the LHD which is so essential to their use. A tent on the deck is nothing like the huge hanger on the canberra, fuel load, weapons lifts, chinook friendlness, safety in landing during bad weather or night ops.
While the bay is in some ways more capable than what she is replacing, she can't be the lynch pin of an amphibious landing like the LHD can. She can help, but a bay (or two or three or four) can't deploy 2,000 troops plus equipment, certainly not with the aviation component any modern amphibious landing would require. Our requirement runs right up to the maxium capability of the much larger LHD, and we need two of them to do it.
There is a very good reason we went with 2 LHD's and not 4 Bay type vessels.
Bay is certainly a capable ship. But she doesn't have anywhere near the aviation capabilities of the LHD which is so essential to their use. A tent on the deck is nothing like the huge hanger on the canberra, fuel load, weapons lifts, chinook friendlness, safety in landing during bad weather or night ops.
While the bay is in some ways more capable than what she is replacing, she can't be the lynch pin of an amphibious landing like the LHD can. She can help, but a bay (or two or three or four) can't deploy 2,000 troops plus equipment, certainly not with the aviation component any modern amphibious landing would require. Our requirement runs right up to the maxium capability of the much larger LHD, and we need two of them to do it.
There is a very good reason we went with 2 LHD's and not 4 Bay type vessels.