FACTS ABOUT HMAS CANBERRA CLASS Landing Helicopter Dock
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 сер 2017
- Check out our excellent variety of resin and diecast aircraft models - with over 400+ commercial and military scale model aircraft and helicopters available! We deliver worldwide
click here : airmodels.net/?aff=112
FACTS ABOUT HMAS CANBERRA CLASS Landing Helicopter Dock
The Canberra class is a ship class of two Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) ships built for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Planning to upgrade the navy's amphibious fleet began in 2000, based on Australian experiences leading the International Force for East Timor peacekeeping operation. With a new climate for growing Australian Navy spending, a desire existed for forward defense capability for landing and supporting troops on Asian territory, that had never existed in Australian history, even with the old Majestic-class light fleet carriers, HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Sydney in the 1970s. In 2004, French company Direction des Constructions Navales (DCN) and Spanish company Navantia were invited to tender proposals, with DCN offering the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship and Navantia proposing the "Buque de Proyección Estratégica" design (later commissioned as Juan Carlos I). The Spanish design was selected in 2007, with Navantia responsible for construction of the ships from the keel to the flight deck, and BAE Systems Australia handling the fabrication of the superstructure and fitting out.
Construction of the first ship, HMAS Canberra, commenced in late 2008, with the hull launched in early 2011, and sea trials in early 2014. Canberra was commissioned in November 2014. Work on the second vessel, HMAS Adelaide, started in early 2010. Adelaide was commissioned in December 2015. They are the largest vessels ever operated by the RAN, with a displacement of 27,500 tonnes (27,100 long tons; 30,300 short tons).
The ships are home-ported at Fleet Base East in Sydney (which has prompted complaints from nearby residents about machinery noise, exhaust fumes, and blocked views) and will regularly operate out of Townsville, the location of Lavarack Barracks, home of the Australian Army's 3rd Brigade. In addition to being located in North Queensland close to Asia and the Pacific Islands, one of the 3rd Brigade's Battalion's, the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, was selected to become the Army's specialist amphibious infantry battalion.
FOOTAGE ATTRIBUTIONS :
under creative commons license
• NUSHIP Canberra sails ... by Royal Australian Navy
• Time Lapse of NUSHIP C... by Royal Australian Navy
• Tour of NUSHIP Canberra by Royal Australian Navy
Film Credits: PO2 Johans Chavarro, PO2 Laurie Dexter, Royal Australian Navy Video by Leading Seaman Tom Gibson
Film Credits: Cpl Natalie Dillon
Film Credits: PO1 Meranda Keller
Check out our excellent variety of resin and diecast aircraft models - with over 400+ commercial and military scale model aircraft and helicopters available! We deliver worldwide click here : airmodels.net/?aff=112
The ski jump on the front screams out the need for the Aussies to also buy a couple squadrons of F35-B's instead of just the airforce A models. Then you can have jet fighters at sea again. You're so close. Just do it.
Theres been discussions with defence ministers to aquire the capabilities to deploy fighter jets. It does need heat protection decks and room as well as servicing equipments. Australia has only purchased 72 F-35A, from its initial plans to buy 100, perhaps the rest of the 28 can be the F-35B varient for Marinetine defence.
*ANDY* the "discussion" ended on the conclusion that the Tiger Helicopters were sufficient enough in offensive capabilities and recon missions. The Australian defence budget is allocated to $200 billion which $89 billion goes towards the RAN. Im sure the cost of a $3.1 billion LHD carrier can get the same upgrades as the British Queen Elizabeths heat protection deck that the whole vessel costed all together $3.4 billion AUD.
*ANDY* the plans are consistently changing and modified, the initial purchase of the F-35A was at 100, instead we bought 72 and modified the remaining 12 super hornets into growler technology. The navy doesn't even have the man power to deploy 2 submarines and this is the current man power problem with our collins class subs as well as maintenance issues. The original plan looked at 10 Japanese Soryu submarines that converted to French Barracudas. The patrol boats is also too large to be realistic. The current 13 fleet Armidales are planned to be replaced by 20 Australian built Patrol vessels in a ship yard. Again the frigates may be decreased in quantity purchase but all these RAN purchases are in seperate years. Which means at least $100-500 million could've been allocated to the heat protection deck and then the airforce covers the budget in purchasing F-35Bs. Theoretically the fighter jet capabilities could've been a cheaper alternative then keeping forward operating bases in the UAE or South East Asia.
The original Juan Carlos I in Spain's Navy use Harrier Jets so I'm convinced the 2 Aussie one's could handle the 35B. Either way, the aircraft ability is not the main role of this vessel - just thought that needed pointing out.
It's top of it's class and a fantastic & defendable vessel.
The spanish LHD Juan Carlos primero Works with Harrier but are waiting F35 for the next decade.
Otra gran obra Made in Spain, y buen filin con Australia!!🇪🇸🇪🇸
It has very high sides. You would lose your fish before you got it onto the deck.
this comment made me laugh hysterically out loud... lol
Yes they do have that problem😂
Depends on the Angler
I was able to tour this ship today in Hobart. Awesome boat
Just to clarify, the ships do not cost $1.5b each, the project cost is slated at $3b total, Australian Defence acquisitions are total cost for LOT (Life of Type) so that is the total cost to build, man, operate, upgrade etc etc for the projected life of the ships at IIRC for the LHD's was 35 years
Are you sure $3b included everything for 35yr? Because that would seem questionable low.
If I remember correctly is was a 35yr LOT, or life of type. could be different, Government could have made it 25 or even 20 years for the budget.
But the constant wit ADF purchasing is that when you forecast program costs, it is total cost of the program, so is does not just cover the cost of the initial capability, but also ongoing costs through the life of the platform, so I may not be on point with the timing, but close enough, point is the ships do not cost $1.5 Bn each, Australian defence has bee like that for a while
So they could do the upgrade for jump jets from this ?
@@craigungerer7442 No, it's economically impossible for Australia to retrofit the LHD's for the F-35b's.
@@craigungerer7442 Yes i& they wanted to but they currently don’t.
the Australian Navy is improving greatly. Keep up the good work!
Producto made in espein . las lanchas y las fragatas lo mejor de la marina australiana de España y si quieren buenos sucmarinis tanen los tenemos.
El L61 es elmmejor varco de su' tipo tiene todo lo necesario para prollectar una operacion de desembarco.
Beautiful ships. We should acquire two similar but modified units built from the get go to operate F35B as well as rotary wing platforms. 2xLHDs plus the two Albion LPDs would provide about the max amphibious clout we'd ever need for purely UK operations. As well as allowing us to participate effectively in joint ops with our real (fellow Anglosphere) allies. Once complete the QE's airwing would be transferred to the new units and QE and PoW converted to CATOBAR.. as should've been the case from the outset.
An amphibious strike force of the two Australian Canberras, 2 UK equivalents and two Albions, all covered by both QEs, between them operating over 100 aircraft and screened by a combined CANZUK escort is not something most 'problem' states would care to risk seeing turn up at their front door, even if the Septics were otherwise engaged.
@MercyReaper Yep. The fourth Bay Class having been sold to Australia who operate it as an RAN ship will a naval crew. And? We need LPH plus fast jet capability for close protection of purely amphibious forces and limited strike. France, for eg has the three Mistrals and although they are rotary wing only supply the LPD capability the Albions afford us as well as permitting better air ops. Adding F35 to a UK LPH would provide some of the clout the USMC assault carriers have.
I walked the old Melbourne as a 6 year old and that had an offensive capability that patrolled the Pacific. Our new ACC need full phalanx protection , plus bolt on SEARAM as well as marinised loyal wingman fighters that have jump jet ability. Go hard RAN
From 9:35, great choice of music, video of giant ships cruising slowly taken from below the deck level of them makes them look so menacing
Beautiful ship.
Very good. We need to have that ship which can carry some fight air planes.
Another 3 would be good
Dang, nice boat.
GREAT Videos!!! I "Like"d... you have great shots of interior, do you serve with RAN?? I'm a USN Veteran (20+ years) and also a model ship-builder, who has the Orange Hobby 1/700 scale Juan Carlos I-class vessel that will be converted into HMAS Canberra, and "I" appreciate your views of well deck and other vehicle decks .... Oh by the way your sound selection R O C KS especially the bitchin' view @ 10:23 !!!
Also Thanks again to my shipmates 'Down Under'!! You RAN guys saved me a couple of times, when I was a young 'sea-squirt' in Japan during RIMPAC back in the 80's!!! Great Allies Indeed!!!
well done to australia navy love from uk
Nice pants
@@Albiliuss u like my pants and thanks
Great video I am hoping that in the future they will operate jets. As an Aussie that is something our navy has been missing since we got rid of HMAS Melbourne in the 80's
Yes I remember old HMAS Melbourne on her farewell, moving along the coast off Merewether headland , it was a sad day but she out lived her usefulness and we lost and skills launching fixed wing aircraft . And old PM Mal, so kindly handed back to the RN what would have been or might have been , HMAS Invincible and Hawk sealed it .
, Maybe in a few years we might see something , I cant see these ships as Cv type or though , 6 or 8 aircraft on either one and if needed , maybe a few more if they had too in a pinch but its more of ship and troop protection with these kind even though she does have a larger hangar then the wasp class .
But the Navy needs to grow, and hopefully overtime with these ships they may indeed slowly bring back those skills and rethink something similar but lager with all the bugs ironed, and a little wider flat top but still maintaining flexibility for a small navy we have .
Ryan Ferguson
Unfortunately it cannot handle a light carrier load.
But it can have about 10 VTOL.
But needs a lot of support/protection if they are F35b. They will cost more than the Spanish class heli.
She's a very good ship.
But has a lot of limitations re fighters.
not correct at all, it is capable, the deck and deck coating are the same as the JC1, all decks from the flight deck down are the same and the JC1, it was internal layout changes in the superstructure, in particular the ops room etc. And also some changes in fuel and munitions storage
I know they would need modifications to operate stovl aircraft but theoretically, it could be done.
Ryan Ferguson
Absolutely.
But your point is?
The ship isnt a carrier.
It needs massive amounts of work to even make it a small light carrier.
It would prob cost more to retrofit than to just make an Illustrious class or cavour.
Its an LHD.
As said, it 'could' have 10 F35b on board.... but the planes would cost more than the ship, it would need an escort group, FA...etc etc.
Not to mention the relevant crews, proper heat paint on the deck etc etc....
its a heli pad.
Tech yes.... but at a huge cost!
Advantages 12degrees of skijump to work with bag weather, and to make up the relative slow speed.
The big bridge cut the wind for aereal operations with big level of wind. All the controls are duplicates for a possible impact.
The armament of the vessel depends of the client.
Sorry for my English knowlege
WOW!!
I feel this a good ship and it has a lot of potential to be developed also into another class of ship if they wanted , maybe 45,000 / 50,000 t range , if that were possible between Spain and Australia they could develop a ship with the flexibility of having the aspect of a LHD and a wider flat top of a medium aircraft carrier, it might be interesting combination if not for Australia and Spain, or maybe for other countries .
As These ships are designed to operate with less crewing compared with US LHD ships in general, they may make a good base for future and take advantage of her shallow draft , the extra size would help in stowage of fuel etc. and any other limitations they may have now and having that extra length may reduce some of that the hight .
There is only a few two things I would have liked to seen with the Canberra class , one is , the stern lengthen to a accommodate extra deck space , more like the wasp has added on which it may bring with it some flexibility to accommodate lager stovl aircraft on her decks even if it was just cross decking .
You never know the RAN might purchase the v 22 osprey, and having that ability would not have gone astray , the ship the crane, I not sure why they did not swept it back more on the side , these are just little things, I am just looking at more unobstructed space on her deck , maybe they have thought about it, I am just thinking of the future ,.
Paul baker extra space but for more troop capacity too, a wider flat-top deck of course, a bigger well deck modified to also dock shortfin 'cuda subs from below ship while underway at sea (like the top deck is dedicated for air traffic), longer ship 45,000 - 50,000t range, more guns... I like the way you think.
Great Vid! Cool ship.
Nice carrier! Impressive! From the UK x
We need 30 of them
looking gooood for Oz!
Great ship with no aircraft that's strange
Looks like some Stealth design went into the top of the ship? But with those slab sides......worth it? Maybe radar doesn't go that low?
These are impressive ships but the lack of fixed wing aircraft is a disadvantage jmo.
put 2 together side by side and make the other half a aircraft carrier section for planes and you'd have yourself one baddass carrrier
With most navies being quite compact and relying on cooperation between states, why apart from cost do they seem to skimp on defence/offence systems on otherwise hugely expensive and difficult to replace ships? Apart from CIWS which I think any Carrier this size and above should have six units and missile/torpedo decoys, would it really break the bank to have a SAM and SSM system? I just can't see the reason not to have these as last ditch protection if to all horrors your small amount of escort ships can't stay in a fight?
Bushcraft1974 agreed, the new air warfare destroyers only have one CIWS each. Meaning there is always a potential for a blind spot. Modern ship killing missiles are able the detect and vector in on defence weaknesses.
At least 2 Phalanx would have been appropiate for defence purposes and they could still use the cannons to target small pirate vessels with it too. Right now it only has 4 rafael typhoon 25 mm cannons however there is plans to install 3 CIWS by 2018.
I have always wondered that as well. For the Canberra Class, they will add x3 Phalanx CIWS in 2018, but all their guns are short range. Compare this to the Italian aircraft carrier, which has 1 or 2 76mm guns. Seriously- put something on the ski ramp.
Ships this size have escorts, the escorts do the protecting
It will be just like during the second world war - when ships will start sinking from mass subsonic missiles, airplanes, drones and dumb bombs attacks because of the limited number of "inteligent", supersonic and hypersonic weapons, every navy will start equipping their ships with more and more air defences.
Even relatively old and slow systems like old versions of Exocet missile are able to sink a modern warship while not even exploding *wink*... Uparming warships will happen, if not for that reason, it will be against the more and more numerous drones, which will gain ship-killing ordnance sooner or later.
The Royal Canadian Navy can benefit great from a ship like this.
Maybe we can have a go at it. If both Canada and Australia could share the cost of a "used" 2nd Canberra class - maybe Canada can get it's 21st century air-craft carrier in operation. 6 months in Canada - and 6 months in Australia. Long trip!
@@Cyberpuppy63 dreamer
Every one seems to have forgotten that it takes a minimum of 3 ships for 1 to be where it's required. Now with the short time they're actually at sea these days the 3 rule is even more important. One on scene, one retuning and one replenishing to go to sea. Therefore the best we should expect is one Hobart class to be at sea at a time. As for these confused ships best to expect one maybe when the novelty where's off. It was hard enough to run two carriers and get one to sea, when it became one it was hard work by all to keep it going and it ir was away for the best part of a year at times.
F-35's would be the answer, but due to the overun costs, I doubt it, still gud to see our Australian brothers have got a capable platform to Operate from, sure we'll be working with you guys in the future, RNZAF/NZ Army/RNZN , NEW ZEALAND
What Australia needs is a aircraft carrier like the UK new Elizabeth class carriers. (HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Whales. Then u would have a warship which could carry vtol jets like the f35b or old fashioned Harrier jet.
That ship could do vtol F35's easy. It's the biggest RAN warship ever and that means bigger than our old aircraft carriers. It's also longer by about 17m plus its got the ski jump. We launched fixed wings from the old one. Other navies thought our landing was too small and the yanks wouldn't put down on it or any one else. Also it was quite narrow compared to what they were used to. Our pilots just got on with it. So this one's got acres of room. We don't need what we don't need. I've got a suspicion that this one could accommodate a US Marine vtol without any problem and that's why the ski jumps still there, for a heavy payload. Just a guess though. PS we don't want harriers.
Harrier is dead and F35B is a joke, you will be able to fly 350km from the ship and spend 20 minutes on the target without refueling with F35B compared to flying 500KM+ with F35C from the ship and having capability to air to air refuel the aircraft and extend the range as much as you want. these two are basically built for humanitarian aid or assistance to US military operations. what Australia need is a proper nuclear aircraft carrier that is built for aircrafts, not for transporting troops and equipment. they should sell one of these and build (with US assistance) ship that can carry F35Cs, Growlers, Advanced hornets, X-47 and refuel tankers, dosent need to be as big as American carriers are and wouldn't cost too much
No, Australia is surrounded by islands we need an amphibious capability with these two ships and HMAS Choules (formerly HMS Choules) we finally have an amphibious capability, to have one available at all times you need at least 3 of that ship, so maybe we can build them separately but do not suggest selling and crippling a much needed capability, remember we can't always go to war on ferries like how we got to east Timor
john john have you flown an F-35B before because to my knowledge most of it is top secret and the pilots say its a great plane for the job and the harrier isn’t dead as you like to put it that’s why a hell of a lot of country’s still use it including America
Wonnabe F-35 expert here
The carriers they have are perfect for the job they could do with the capability to hold at least 9 F-35Bs but it’s not necessary for a country like Australia
@British WarShepherd The Australian Navy don't have the man power to operate such a ship. Most likely to best ship to build is something like the HMAS Melbourne ( Mejestic class carrier) With todays Technolities The HMAS Melbourne we once had had crew of over 1300 and we found that hard to find but with today Tech it would be cut down to 700 to 750 crew
It’s good that my country has 2 aircraft carriers
What countrys that then? Not Australia.
@@bulletproofkam7931 yes it is Australia, helicopters are aircraft.
These ships are not aircraft carriers, but Landing Helicopter Docks.
@Kaiser Wilhelm II A ship carrying only Helis is a LHD, while a ship carrying jets and helis is an aircraft carrier, which have a different identification code: C for carriers, L for LHD with anphibious role. Did you understand, now?
@Kaiser Wilhelm II You have a loss of sugar... The different classification means all, for the one with a medium QI.
Low speed, Low Defence Armament, Extremely low concealment = High target priority.
big fat slow target
Put it into perspective, LHD or any aircraft carrier is always a high target and never stealth. Speed wise, 20knots is only marginally slower than Wasp (22), Dokdo (23), faster than Mistral (18.8). Only the Japanese Kaga at 30 knots is superior.
LHD or aircraft carrier (like Liverpool F.C.), never walk alone. Destroyers, submarines, Guided missile cruisers, frigates, logistic ships, in different configurations, depending of the mission, usually forms the carrier task force.
You’re obviously American
@@SkyBstorm No...
Ex RAN.
its a good troop transport if you have a army of 100,000 you should have 10 of these
The hipe Australia should have an army of 55,000 Regulars, and we should have 4 of these (but able to embark up to a dozen F35Bs each), 4 Choules, 8 AWDs, 16 Frigates and 12 LCS Independence type naval corvettes. They should be split down the middle with half home ported at FBW (with a rotation in Darwin) and half at FBE (which should be in Brisbane, with a rotation in Townsville). But we don’t. Now excuse me while a wake up from my wet dream.
Iconoclasticnation 10 of these = D DAY
I saw them in Sydney during holidays, didn't have any idea they were built by company from my country. Strange!, however don't see them practicall at all for fighthers, no many options :D
I'm Australian and all this's facts are correct
Australia has invested in jump jets , I’m Australian also 😛
No they have not
@howard weitzell Climate Change. When our climate becomes colder and we routinely have snow and ice, the ski jump ramps will be most useful. Quite frankly, Howard, I am not sure why you could not see that.
The spanish JCI will be design to operate the f35 in the future, the Australian also.
Out of curiosity, is it a cost factor or is there some other reason why Australia would go with primarily Spanish and French assistance for building and equipping much of this carrier, versus American?
The two LHD's/Light Carriers seem to be working for the Aussies, been a long time coming since the decommissioning of HMAS Melbourne R21 and her S-2's and A-4's which we inherited back then, just need some F-35B's and a few AH-1Z Sea Vipers and the Royal Australian Navys back in business 😉
Is this ship designed to carry diverse good will ambassadors, landing them to effect hearts and minds?
35b can still operate on this ship they have vertical lift off they would just have to take of with just enough fuel to make it to an awaiting fuel tanker it's the C model that needs the ski jump the B model only needs ski jump fully loaded
Plenty of room for harriers or similar, why have a ski jump platform if we are not getting them ! I was on the big M and the smell of avgas in the morning was great...
There are current issues of breakdowns at sea. Can anyone confirm this ?
So many naval engineers. So few Internets.
We could have a proper fix wing carrier built
With the government we have now, probably not, would be nice tho, maybe we can buy the USS Enterprise from America they are gonna scrap it anyway
@@thegermanempire489 We don't the personal for those sort of carriers and have band of nuke power
At 20knots its extremely slow, was it designed to operate at that speed?
Also why keep the ski ramp if they are never going to operate fixed wing aircraft?
Looks a great ship though and very capable
marxmcrae And these ships will likely be retrofited in 10-15 years they could incorporate fixed aircraft, Australia doesnt really have a strategic need for Fixed Aircraft carriers atleased now, I heard after the 12 subs are built we might buy spainish british or more likely french aircraft carriers
@@JamesLikesIcedCream After we build the 12th submarine in the early 2050s we are going to build their replacements that's what a Continuous build means. After we build the 9th frigate in 2042 we will build the Hobarts replacement. Its all in the ship Building plan, there is currently no plan for Carriers.
Why keep the ski ramp? Balance. If you remove the ski ramp you need to remove parts of the island. It was designed by and for the Spanish. Us Aussies thought it suited our purposes which was helping out our friends on the islands in the pacific when they get hit by a cyclone or their military stage a coup or get drowned by global warming. Australia doesn't need to invade these islands with squadrons of f-35s. We need to get boots on ground and and have HELOs running injured and supplies back and forth.
@*ANDY* When the Australian Navy isn't chasing refugee boats they plan on using the Canberra Class to push iceberg's up from Antarctica so we can cool our beers for happy hour.
Perhaps I’m missing an obvious answer, but I have to ask: why does it have a ski jump which is only for fixed wing aircraft, when it it not intended to fly fixed wing aircraft off this vessel. Genuinely puzzled.
If you look closely at them you will note that the Ski Ramp is integrated into the Hull as opposed to being bolted like the Invincible and Cavour classes or the Hermes. To get rid of the Ski Ramp would have needed a major redesign that would have cost a lot of money to get rid of, the Ski Ramp doesn’t effect the performance of the Ship in any way and still allows for a future change of direction in regards to VSTOL Aircraft.
Australia should have a strong navy because of the very long coastline and because of the increasing Chinese presence in intl waters. The US needs backup in the Pacific.
Why can't US mind their own business and leave Australia out of their problems?
China is US's problem. Not Australia's problem.
And I'm pretty sure international waters mean any nation can operate in them. Including US and China.
@John Gilliam but youd have no problem if it was yanks right ? knobhead...International...look the fucking weord up.. IDIOT !!
@@RR-us2kp We are constantly battling illegal Chinese fishing boats in the Antarctic, their mother ships stay in intl waters while their smaller boats invade our territory at will and there's nothing we can do about it, we do not have the manpower or resources to keep tabs on even a 10th of them...
@@RR-us2kp China most certainly is Australias problem. Where have you been living the last decade?
spanish carrier fuck yeah nice!
Needs Carrier support for its landing craft. Aka HMAS Melbourne.
But support/s need to be 3x bigger than decommissioned Melbourne.
Australian Navy will be part of an American fleet in any major conflict. Carrier support will be from US carriers.
Apache, currently Tiger
So if fixed wing flight’s not planned for .. what’s with the ski ramp .. surely some fixed wing will “project” power
G'day!
G'day mate, you from 🇦🇺?
Nothing on this video that i didn't already learn from Wikipedia.
never forget who your mates are. My Grandad was on the original Canberra in WW2, we know what really happened.
Gee the landcraft seem outdated with open hulls. I hope Australia upgrades to something like the amphibious landing craft
Does this ship have any defence armour,like guns or surface to air rockets................
They have missile and torpedo decoys and 4 x 25mm Rafael Typhoon guns. Most of the defence is provided by escort ships.
Bushcraft1974..Thanks for the info..its a shame they do have surface to air defence rockets..im just wondering do we have enough destroyers or cruisers to provide sufficent protection.
Bushcraft1974..correction,i meant to say..its a shame they do NOT have surface to air defence rockets.
+Barry grier That's the point I've always wondered about with many modern Navies having reduced drastically in size. The Top Brass or maybe Politicians seem to think it's worth the risk not adding these weapons. Take us in the UK, about to take delivery of 2 huge Carriers. If both are needed in service where is the protection coming from? We have just 6 destroyers and 13 Frigates. Of those 19 ships how many will be ready for Theatre at any one time. How many of these 19 are needed to provide ample protection for our two Carriers? Consider the fact our ships are vastly under armed compared with our US Allies and especially our Destroyers being single role Air protection ships with just 48 missiles to an Arleigh Burkes 72 plus other offensive type missiles you begin to see a flaw if somebody of similar strength is shooting back!!
Bushcraft1974..Seems the UK and Australia both share this kind of negative thinking for our navy..Actually we had a carrier force many years ago.We were in possession of the carrier the ARK ROYAL from the UK and protection ships,but some bright politition decided we dont need air craft carriers anymore..Now many many years down the track the polititions have decided now we will have a modified new design type of carrier,but only carries a limited number of helicopters, and with limited destroyer protection.Makes one wonder of the intelligence of our polititions who are responsible for our welfare and protection..My hope is they will decide later to modify the new carrier to accomodate fixed wing air craft..
Fiji watch out mate.
No china watchout. Fool
Esto es un trabajo bien hecho en España se hacen trozos del barco que se envían a Australia en Australia hacen trozo del barco que se montan allí se entienden bien no hay problemas los dos sacan beneficio esto es lo que yo llamo una buena simbiosis para lo que espero que con esto de los chinos Australia pida al menos cinco destructores más entre ellos los Smart 8000 y algún submarino s 80 PLUS y ya tendría una armada impresionante
Whats the name of this song, or who is the band.
Trust You Tube to drag out all the so called “Military Experts” 99% of who couldn’t tell the difference between the Canberra Class LHD and the Canberra CA
I just read these ships cost the same a WASP class of the us navy, was it worth it ? I don’t thingk so. The capability is not even close. They badly need to strengthen the deck to get full capability out of these. Damn shame they didn’t think of it earlier.
Its a landing ship, if they strengthen they deck for fighter jets it cannot be used as a landing ship you fool
Go for it F35B on board of this ship!!
Australia needs to step up more on military hardware. they Running behind many countries.
No they aint...as a % of GDP they are running ahead of USA , CHINA and RUSSIA...do some basic research
Fool
Is it true this ship cannot transport the Abrams tank? Or is that a bad rumour?
I believe they can , the limitation came about from what I have read was all due to the upgrades such as extra weight added on to the Abram's , how ever , this beats me as they knew they were going to do this .
They can still place the Abrams in side of the LHD ships that's not the problem as far as I am aware , it comes down to the transport from ship to shore with the LCM landing craft.
But all is not lost ,HMAS Choules can carry I believe up to 30 tanks give or take plus other vehicles and troops ., but the question remains can they get them to shore , well I hope they can .
Max T bad rumour, go on defencejobs.gov and you can see it can take DOZENS
i read this wrong and thought you said "is it true that this cant transform into the Abrams tank?"
ua-cam.com/video/k-w6d44d-FI/v-deo.html
Leopardo 2E (72 tm) in Juan Carlos I (L-61)
The problem is that the LCM8 landing craft that the LHDs carry is unsafe to carry the Abrams from the ship to shore, as the LCM8s sit dangerously low in the water under the weight of the tank. So there is no problem with the Canberra Class taking tanks, its the landing craft that need replacing.
needs just one more of these and two Eliz Class A/C with the proportionate support and it would be a serious world class navy.
Don't forget 15000 more sailors 5-6 more AWDs 8-10 more FFGs, 100 Fixed Wing Aircraft and $150b to pay for it
so it's a lillypad?
Why we go to France for our hardware is the Pollies want a free trip to Paris,
I was on the big M and trust me those chairs won’t stay in place long if your crossing the bight , the Melbourne actually went through waves , I have pics...
Tired of music montages.
Should’ve bought American Amphibious Ships
They are too big for our liking
I heard the landing craft cannot support the weight of a abrams, do you know if that’s true?
Brenton Ryan the lcac Landing craft air cushion can handle one abrams tank these are also Able to be launched from the Canberra
Kyle Sheedy yeah but the Canberra class landing craft struggle in rough seas while unloading Abrams. I really don’t know how they over looked that capability. They should have been tested in all Sea states. And not just fallen for the demonstration of the Spanish unloading a Leopard 2 or M60 in calm seas , as I’m led to believe... yes but they do not operate LCAC do they?
It's amazing how they build these ships with such little air defense. Most I seen on american destroyers are 3-4 ciws Gatling cannons for close air defense. Sure you got the missiles on the destroyers but cruise missiles for anti ship are designed to skim the ocean by mere few ft by the time they are detected it is to late to track and target fire on them not including missile time to travel to and take out these targets. All while new cruise missiles being developed are super sonic and contain multiple warheads to be released before impact to give greater chance of one getting through defenses they are hoping to overwhelm the target. Yet so little close support is included
WW2 ships even small vessels had 70-100 close support guns for shooting down planes and they still had room for the massive guns. Seems technology has made the west very cocky they expect 4 ciws to shoot down the massive amounts of missiles a determined enemy will fire at them. Destroyers and short ranged helicopter carriers will be useless to countries like Iran, North Korea, China, Russia,and India who have thousands of missiles. If I was building one of these I would dozens of guns and close range air to air missile platforms. More focus needs to put on defense than what they are now. Even pentagon has come forward saying aircraft carriers would only last the most 12 minutes in a real war due to missile saturation. Countries like Russia would have no problem firing off 50 missiles for one ship or even 100 missiles to ensure 1 hits and take out the target.
mike vega Theres plans to install 3 CIWS by 2018
mike vega They should seriously consider modifying both ships to incorporate the Sea sparrow self defence missile system as has the two Japanese vessels of similar build. CIWS have their limitations and these ships deserve better self protection. The ANZACS are smallish underarmed vessels for such escort duties in dangerous waters
ANZAC FOR EVER
At this point in time and given both ships support capabilities; why not buy some Sikorsky S-97 high speed attack helicopters for these amphibious assault ships.They are capable of cruising at speeds of 253 mph (407.2 kph) with I am guessing, as it is probably classified, a top speed around 300 mph. (482.8 kph) Due to USA defense cuts we (the USA) may not purchase them but they would be a great addition to these two vessels without many changes to the vessel or the S-97. Rolling radar or ground and ocean hugging capability would make a great addition to such a helicopter for radar avoidance. (if it isn't already included in the S-97 self-funded, Sikorsky funded copter)
If you are looking to add 1 or 2 small carriers shy not buy the ship hull from India and then outfit it in Australia for the F35B strike fighter. Such a ship is best used for coastal or landing troop defense than an offensive weapon. Of course, due to the cost of the F35's and the flat tops; 1 or 2 such ships may be your nations limit. They would make a good addition to your forces.
The S-97 is still under development and would not be available to the 2030s
Need to reverse some of the video here; it's been put in backwards.
The two RAN ships are floating targets hopefully relying on someone else to fight to defend them. Trouble is that even the Hobart destroyers aren't truely equiped to fight, just a short swift defence and then run away. Thats what the politically correct brigade have done to the Navy. Its structured its provide humanitarian aide not fight a war.
F-35 fly away cost 100 million + Canberra Class - 2 Squadrons = 2 billion. Yea Helicopter Squadrons much cheaper in the sort term
3)
Remove the crane and landing craft of the deck!
We should build another two of these before we loose the talent. They have too limited capability and have too many vulnerabilities by air attack.. Two more with strengthened decks and a Pount Defence. Good for South Australians to get off the Dole.
Bae system build aussie ships ,a brit company
Build to accommodate f35
These ships aren't.
No they weren't. They left the ramp on in the design because it was cheaper to leave it there than remove it. Yet another dumb call by our Government and Defence. These ships should have been built with reinforced decks to enable the JSF35 B Variant. Stupid is as stupid does, but we don't want to do anything that will offend China. JOKE!@@bulletproofkam7931
@@scotttucker3673 you really are a fool
@@bulletproofkam7931el JCI está diseñado para llevar los f35 desde el inicio del diseño del buque.
Compared with the self defence systems on the US equivalent they are not well defended.Just think of what would be required to bring it up to "Carrier Op's"Fuel storage, Magazines for the Bombs etc, Maitainence Crews, Control Tower (or the like) plus crews for that.Fuel piping to get the fuel to the deck, Aircraft Maint areas plus Hanger space for servicing and storage.ETC, ETC, ETC....…..As for the F 35 (Will keep my personal views to myself) but have a gander at this report and make up your own mind.arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/navys-f-35-doesnt-have-range-for-real-stealth-strikes-house-report-says/F 35 is a "Fighter" Put bombs, rockets, Long range fuel tanks on its wing hard points and its just another aircraft.All "Stealth capability " gone.Well my view only….Cheers......
The fact now is that the Canberra class is inferior, to those navies upgrading the helicopter carries with F35b's. Japan Turkey, Spain Italy. The weapons protection on the Canberra class is again inferior to most LHD in the world. Past & present Australian governments have failed to adequately equip these vessels for self protection & attack.
No se considera una prioridad ya que siempre van acompañados por fragatas, pero yo tambien pienso que deberian tener sistemas CIWS.
@@JuanGomez-wp8gm No speak Spanish?
You have no idea
Imagine this ship with a squadron of F-35B fighters/attack aircraft stationed on it.
Phillip Mulligan stop thinking that you’re a military expert when you’re not
@@dutchvanderlinde1408 he has a point, if we put F-35Bs on that thing it would have much more strategic value.
Dezzzz nuts
Ski jump for f35
Nope!
It’s there because it would’ve cost money to redesign the ship. They will probably never operate F-35s
@@jonbgreen6916el barco español está diseñado desde el principio para operar los f35, rampa, ascensores, cubierta, todo.
Do we really need this type of military power to be the master of the pacific islanders ? ! and if we do have 2-6 more of these ship , can we attack the northern neighbour ?... the answer for all above ... is NO !
No but we may need it to keep the Sea lanes to Singapore open where 90% of our trade goes through.
Oh no! They have blown 2B to 3B on two of these things and we don’t even need them! If only they had spoken to you first.😮😮😮
We get 2 carriers with no aircraft and no defence weapons?
Its first and formost a landing ship fool. Not an aircraft carrier not a destroyer.
It doesn’t have sea whiz, mmmmmm
Great ship but no so great aviation. Helo's that are not marine grade, that take hours to un-blade to store safely. Turnbulls government, DoD & head navy staff have given the Australian nation the best disaster relief boat in the world, But please don't send this ship to war as it's defensive & offensive sting is non existent. Chinese & other world Admirals like North Korea's must be clapping their hands in glee at the stupidity of our present government.
Why would north Korea atack these ships! They don't atack any ships! And probably never will, they are a defence force duh!
1.5 bil for a glorified goose egg .. choppers/personal well that's fcked up 20 KNOTS my cat can sail faster then that
Idiot
Haha, see how fast your cat goes with a tank sitting on it 😂😂😂
Two new ships affected by severe chronic problems due to design errors: it might happen when you spend your money in Spanish naval projects.
Thanks for your extremely íntelligent comment. Without having any idea of ships, you dare to share your thoughts with us.
For your information, Australian Royal Navy and Navantia collaboration is really strong. These two HLDs, three additional frigates (based on F-100 spanish frigates) and two logistic ships are good examples.
@@antonyoization Navantia was excluded in the recent tender for the new submarine for the Australian Navy.
If you want info about Navantia ships design problems:
www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25218/we-have-the-first-official-report-on-norways-sunken-frigate-and-it-isnt-pretty
www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-19/navy-cant-rule-out-design-faults-as-cause-of-ships-problems/8542382
All bullshit:
- Definitive report on the issue from the RNN that absolutely and definitively acquitted Navantia: elpais.com/economia/2019/11/11/actualidad/1573474881_771350.html
- technical explanatory video by an experienced admiral from the Spanish Naval League: m.ua-cam.com/video/4-q-3Yo8QuM/v-deo.html
- the second “evidence” strongly and definitively showed that... “THERE MIGHT BE design faults“, never provided.
Very very serious stuff against spanish naval industry.
Thanks.
@Jose Luis Sanchez Redondo Navantia was excluded in the recent tender for the new submarine for the Australian Navy.
And what?
Crap music
That ship is a wast of money for just helicopters should have had room for jets of some kind like the F35 or Harrier
What do you think the ski jumps are for? BMX stunt bikes?
Its a landing ship fool
El diseño español está preparado para operar el f35 desde sus inicios, nose porque dicen que los barcos australianos no lo están...
literally a piece of shit, floating coffin
whats this rubbish? buying Spanish ships now because you cant build them yourself
Dryootube yes Australia lacks the design and construction capabilities for a LHD or Aircraft Carrier
We should have at least got the Wasp class. These Spanish things are overgrown landing craft with a flight deck suitable for helicopters only. A single Indonesian SU27 could sink one easily. These Spanish things are sitting ducks and useless unless we want to invade another country.
At the very least, we should have purchased the US Wasp class which are the same cost and can operate as a light carrier. At least we get the Harrier FRS2 . The combination of blue vixen radar and AMRAM can take out an SU27, but a helicopter has no hope. Eventually the F35C will be available. There is no planning here. These are meant to be warships and must be fit for war against a neighbour that has a navy 3 tomes the size of ours, and an air force that can ensure air superiority over the water. In 1939 we sent our lads to sea in sub standard equipment. In 1941, that got an order of magnitude worse when Japan entered the war. Today is no different. If we need these ships, they will not perform. The planning is disgraceful.
These "Spanish things" are one of the best amphibious SHIPS of the world, only below the US LHA,s.
You better use abundant mouth rinse before saying a word about Spain, prospectively challenging idiot.
@@MFS131268 lol. These are the wrong ships for the Australian navy. We have no use for a landing ship dock because we have no doctrine for invading another country. Our navy needs aircraft carriers. These Spanish things look like an aircraft carrier but fall far short. The Wasp and America class were designed to double as a light carrier. My criticism was poorly worded and not meant to be a criticism of the ship design. But rather these are the wrong ship and reflect badly on the Australian government. If these ships are ever needed. It will be in a sea denial role for which they are completely unsuitable
@@operator6942 They are a good amphibious landing dock. But that is a major ship with no place in our navy. My criticism is not about the ship design or Spanish. My criticism is we purchased the wrong ships. We needed light carriers. There is no war scenario where Australia invades another country. But there are scenarios for fleet defence and sea denial that need aircraft carriers. Long live Spain
@@MFS131268 I said nothing bad about Spain. Selma must be the Spanish translation for Karen.
Lo barato sale caro: esos buques de Navantia están llenos de defectos structurales...
Tienes, a lo mejor, algún estudio que lo indique? o solo es tu opinión? y por favor no saques a colación el reporte del 2018 de la fragata noruega Helge Ingstad, porque el reporte final de la armada noruega determina claramente que la culpa fue de la tripulación del barco y no del diseño. Te invito a que lo leas. No creo que las armadas de Australia y Turquía hayan elegido un mal diseño, aunque apreciaría cualquier información relevante al respecto que puedas proveer.
si estas resentido existen pastillas para eso
Si así fuera, tampocopasaría nada: tú también estás lleno de defectos estructurales y por aquí te dejamos navegar, elemento!
@@MFS131268 Ve por internet buscando los problemas en los buques de Australia Noruega y los S80 para la Armada y otros paises...te daras cuenta de lo que digo
Gil, todos los diseños de buques estan dando algun problema. Mira los nuevos destructores o portaaviones de USA. Navantia es calidad a precio imbatible...el S-80 plus es el primer submarino 100% Español y sera una buena inversión. Lo primero siempre requiere un esfuerzo de desarrollo adicional.
Do we really need this type of military power to be the master of the pacific islanders ? ! and if we do have 2-6 more of these ship , can we attack the northern neighbour ?... the answer for all above ... is NO !
Would have been very handy to have these in East Timor and for the Boxing Day Tsunami relief operation.
billy y, the answer is YES!!, and the really correct answer is we should have three.
Yeah ideally We'd have 4 Canberra Class, 4 Choules, 8 Perth AW Destroyers, 12 Frigates, 12 LCS upgraded Corvettes, 12 Submarines. And the Canberra Class would operate the F35B STOVL. Just make me the minister for defence, give me a massive budget and I'll get it done, Lol.
We need to be able to counter any aggression from China and it's allies. With more of these principal warships and submarines the answer is yes.