Talk:Aircraft carriers of the Royal Australian Navy

Ships Ordered
in June '07 Australia ordered the Spanish ships, the change to a flat deck from the ski jump would be a major redesign so even if there is no F-35s or used Sea Harriers purchased an aircraft carrier it will be.
 * Not necessarily: a carrier is a lot more than just a ship with a large flight deck. The ships are to be fitted out as amphibious transports and presumably won't have the magazines, hangar arrangements, etc, needed to support fixed-wing aircraft - for instance, the British LHA HMS Ocean is based on the same design as the Invincible class carriers, but isn't capable of operating Harriers as it is fitted out to only operate helicopters. It will probably be possible to convert them to carriers, but at present the Navy is denying that it has any plans to do so and no future funding has been allocated for anything to do with reviving fixed-wing naval aviation. --Nick Dowling 11:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A full length flight deck and offset island by themself would not be a proper defining characteristics for an aircraft carrier as we see with the HMS Ocean, Korean Dokdo or Japanese Osumi and DDH. Like catapults and arrester wires (some other ships had cats but the aircraft had to pontoon land or bail out), a ski jump is a feature only found on an aircraft carrier.  The Dédalo/Cabot (before the arrival of the Matador), USS Princeton, USS Valley Forge, USS Boxer, HMS Albion, and HMS Bulwark which were aircraft carrers but were no longer able to operate modern fixed wing aircraft and were retasked with minimal modification as LPH's.  As long as fixed wing aircraft launching/landing equipment is installed even if there are no capable aircraft in national inventory the ship can be refered to as an aircraft carrier.


 * The Atlantic Conveyor ro-ro cargo ship during the Falkland conflict was surely not an aircraft carrier even though she carried several Harriers since they only ferried, VTOL launched, and never returned to her deck. There were short lived ideas post Falklands war for an emergency kit to equip container ships with a ski jump, combat radar, jet fuel tanks, and defensive systems, this type of modified ship might have been classed as an escort carrier.


 * An American LHA/LHD might sometimes be considered a kind of aircraft carrier since they have demonstrated operationaly with AV-8B squadrons on board during both the first and second Persian Gulf wars, on the other hand they do not have any other major features besides a long flight deck to support their fixed wing aircraft and this is not their normal mission or design. No major design consessions are made on a US Navy LHA/LHD to improve Harrier performance at the expense of rotary wing capability.  During American tests with their LHD's as combat aircraft carriers in 1991 and 2003 weapon magazine capacity, weapon delivery elevator bottlenecks, and insufficient fuel bunkerage were the main concerns which are reportedly addressed in the LHA(R) design.


 * The presence of a well dock and vehicle space in the Buque de Proyección Estratégica makes this vessel a combination LHD ship but the loss of one or two helicopter landing points to a V/STOL launch assist ski jump weighs heavily in calling these vessels a class of light carrier/LHD combination ships instead of strict LPH or LHD type ships like Ocean, Mistral, Doko and DDH class ships. It is difficult to project on the Australian plans for weapon magazines in the Canberra ships from available literature, but surely the combined hangar/parking deck would be left in the standard configuration.


 * The test would be to ask if a visiting USMC or RN Harrier compliment could be launched, land, be stored in the hangar, and be serviced operationaly from a Canberra class ship as they could be from ships like the Príncipe de Asturias or Giuseppe Garibaldi.


 * That's all true. However, the RAN describes the Canberra class as being 'large amphibious ships' and LHAs and has stated on a number of occasions that it has no plans to try to re-introduce fixed-wing aviation, though the ships will be able to serve as a forward base for VTOL-type aircraft. As a result, the ships should be considered amphibious ships until more information is available. I'm yet to see a good source for speculation about the ships being carriers in disguise and it seems that if they are fitted to operate fixed-wing aircraft this will be a secondary role like the USN's LHAs have. Nick Dowling 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of new Government
Is there any useful information on the Canberra class order post change in government, will this be another 1983? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.122.82 (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Canberras as carriers?
The current concensus on Wikipedia regarding aircraft carriers is that amphibious assault ships are not aircraft carriers. While I personally disagree with this opinion, it is inconsistent to cover LHA/LHD/LPH ships as carriers for some nations, and not for others (such as the US and UK). I'm not going to edit-war over this, so perhaps we should take this up and MILHIST or WPSHIPS. - BillCJ (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a question that will always plague the debate, is it a helicopter destroyer or light carrier 13500t class DDH, a through deck cruiser or later a carrier and LHPInvincible class aircraft carrier, LHA/LHD and STOVL attack carrier, LHD Dokdo class amphibious assault ship, light carrier or LPH USS Princeton %28CV-37%29 and even CATOBAR carrier to LPH to STOVL carrier Spanish aircraft carrier D%C3%A9dalo. These all can or with a few weeks in port installing ski jumps could fly STOVL aircraft or even at one time did fly CATOBAR fixed wing aircraft. The classing of these ships and even the reporting of tonnage is all politics, for both funding and international relations. Even the Russians/Soviets played games with naming aviation cruisersSoviet aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. It really depends what you want to project to your government, population, and your neighbors. With Korea, Australia, and Japan we cannot really do anything but class them as advertised, even if in the case with Australia the same class ship will be used by Spain as a part time STOVL light attack carrier. It seems that the United States is the sole nation in our time with both the budget and international standing to not have to lie, compromise, or fudge when they class and order their aviation ships. The same problem has always plagued the true classing of other surface ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.122.82 (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They're not carriers. However, they are large aviation ships so I think that they're worth briefly including in this article with the appropriate provisos added - it's not like the RAN has operated many ships like this and 16 helicopters (including Tiger attack helicopters) is a substancial air wing. The RAN has exercised the current LPAs as 'mini carriers' so the new LPDs will presumably have this as a secondary role. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what is now in the article is fine. I'm OK with listing them in the table, but I'd like to see a role column added so we can clarify what type of ships they are. Also, the table's formatting/style is grossly outdated, but that's beyond my expertise to fix. There is an editor I could ask to look at it if no one here can update it. Nick, I apologize if I came across as too contentious on this issue - you're an excellent editor, and I hardly ever disagree with your edits, and this certainly isn't something to war over. Dealing with over-zelous "nationalists" is a regular part of my editing, and you're certainly not on of those, but after a long day, it's sometimes hard to remember who is what! - BillCJ (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion - I've just expanded the table. I think that I originally did the table in this article and would also agree that it's now old-fashioned - the table at Canberra class large amphibious ship would make a better model. No worries about your comments - I've edited wared with people who claimed that the Canberras were going to be full-fledged carriers in the past, so I agree that very careful wording and reliable citations are needed when discussing the ships. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The expanded table looks good. Good job! - BillCJ (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)