Talk:Canberra class large amphibious ship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Canberra class large amphibious ship is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

[edit] Fixed wing aircraft and the Multi-Purpose vessels

According to a contact I have in the navy it won't happen unless there is a shake up in the top levels of Defence. We are a defence force not a attack force... there is no need for that capability (or so I am told) --Rob 08:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the possibility of operating F-35 or similar aircraft from the Multi-Purpose vessels, and the picture of a "F-35 in the colours of the Royal Australian Navy" appears on every Wikipedia entry which touches on the ships. Is there any evidence that this is more than speculation and wishful thinking? The request for tender which was issued for the ships (ie, the document which sets the conditions which will determine which design is selected) does not appear to specify that the ships be able to operate anything but helicopters. As a result, it seems unlikely that the ships will actually be capable of operating F-35s. --Nick Dowling 11:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It may well be wishful thinking or maybe not. I believe the navy wanted to get it's fixed wing FAA capability back for a long time and may well be doing it by stealth, if you know what I mean. We get what the navy tells us is a large amphibious ship but as proven ships like this have the capability to do other roles too like Sea Control. If I remember correctly,from an article I saw in some magazine (dunno wheter it was Navy Magazine or in the newspapers) air defence for the ship and the amphib task force would be solely the preserve of the Air Warfare Destroyers while supposedly we rely on land based air to provide for air support, which really does not make sense at all if you look at it. Actually it sounds ridiculous. With these points in mind maybe it's not wishful thinking after all eh? If these ships are to operate F-35's their decks better be able to withstand direct jet blasts as the main engine nozzle tilts downward. I'd like to see fixed-wing avation return to the navy personally. You know, if we really were a Defence Force we should not have purchased the F-111 all those years ago in the first place. The only concession we made to make us look less of a threat to our neighbours (if we even were a threat at all) was that we didn't purchase tankers with flying-boom technology until now. Come to think of it, now that we are getting flying boom refueling tankers and the fact that we are getting C-17 Strategic Airlifters as well makes me think more of the likelyhood of the Navy purchasing F-35B's. Dervish6 15:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canberra class

I have seen the Australian Multi-Purpose vessel called the Canberra Class on several occasions, including by the RAN. Is this the official name of the class or is it being called this because the first ship is named Canberra. Hossen27 03:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

RAN ship classes are always derived from the name of the first ship in the class (the 'name ship') so 'Canberra Class' will be the official designation of these ships. --Nick Dowling 07:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thought so, so shold we change the name of the article or should we wait. Hossen27 08:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the name of the article should be changed. The 'Multi-purpose vessel' designation is out of date anyway - this project now always seems to be called the 'Large Amphibious Ships project'. --Nick Dowling 08:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What should the article be called then. Canberra class What. Hossen27 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How about Canberra Class large amphibious ship for now? - this can be changed when an offical designation of the ship type is announced (eg, LHA, LHD, etc). --Nick Dowling 09:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah agree Canberra class large amphibious ship is fine, with no capitalisation on class. Hossen27 09:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)