Talk:Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[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)

[edit] Article title

Nick, I'm curious as to the reasoning behind the move from Canberra class large amphibious ship to Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock. I'm not certain of the naming conventions for these types of class ships, but the Wasp class page is at Wasp class amphibious assault ship, not "Wasp class Landing Helicopter Dock". Similarly, we have the Tarawa class amphibious assault ship and Iwo Jima class amphibious assault ship. To my knowledge, the reason this page was previously at Canberra class large amphibious ship is that this is the term used in most RAN material to this point, and that is is not just an LHD. It is replacing the LPAs and LSH in the RAN, thus covering roles often performed by different ship types. Most of the LPD class articles use Amphibious transport dock in the name, and most of the LSD articles use Dock landing ship in the name, as these are the names of the articles covering those types. It doesn't really matter which way we go on this, as long as we follow consistency. I'm not that familiar with WPSHIPS' naming conventions, so I'm just assuming that the majority of the existing articles already follow the correct pattern. Most of the RAN amphib ships appear to follow their own (or no) pattern, however. - BillCJ (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill, all publications now call these ships the 'Canberra class LHDs' - the 'large amphibious ship' designation was dropped after the decision on what ship design to purchase was made and is no longer used in official sources or the media. I did look into what other similar classes of amphibious ships are called before making the move, but didn't want to call these ships the 'Canberra class amphibious assault ship' as that designation simply isn't used in any published sources I've seen. 'Canberra class LHD' was also unsatisfactory as 'LHD' is an obscure term for non-specialists. As such, I think that this is the best option per WP:NAME. The preceeding RAN class is the Kanimbla class landing platform amphibious and I thought that was the best precedent. I capitalised 'Landing Helicopter Dock' as that's how it appears on Australian Department of Defence websites, though I'm not sure that it's consistent with general Wikipedia naming conventions. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's what they are called, but an LHD is a type of "amphibious assault ships", and how the other similar classes are generally listed here for consistency. The RN didn't call the Invincible class "aircraft carriers" for years, but no one seriously thought they were actually "cruisers", "through-deck" or otherwise. I'll bring this up at WPSHIPS for clarification on applying the naming conventions, and if to see if there's a desire for consistency. Btw, with most short term or less active editors, I'd have just reverted the move as non-consensual, but that's certainly not the way to handle disputes with long-time editors in good standing. However, I probably will propose a move at some point, depending on the answers at WPSHIPS, and whether or not there are changes made to the conventions for these types. Who knows - I might be proposing a move for the Wasp class page to Wasp class Landing Helicopter Dock instead! It really doesn't matter to me what we use, as long as we're as consistent as reasonably possible for similar types. - BillCJ (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries Bill - I probably should have discussed the move first, but I think that this is a no-brainer given that no sources call the ships 'amphibious assault ships' and the use of 'large amphibious ship' was only ever a place-holder until a designation was announced (see above). As always, I appreciate your attention to detail and consultative editing style. I'm not fussed about the final name either - redirects can take care of any confusion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] With regards to the wishlist

Not interested in an edit war, so I'm not going to make the edit myself, for fear of Nick Dowling changing it again. However: the article I posted from the Herald Sun/News.com.au points out the RAN interest in operating fixed wing aircraft off the Canberra-class, and the government's apparent refusal to do so. While someone obsessive might insist the lack of interest in the government doesn't necessarily mean the move hasn't gone ahead, what does is the budget papers, 2008-9. They indicate that far from adding $4b to the defense budget to provide for this capacity, the government has effectively reduced the increases in real spending on defense to 2016. Thus, the move never went ahead. That clarification should be made. 59.167.72.69 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The article does mention that the RAN aparantly asked for a third ship and F-35B aircraft to fly off it but that the government didn't like the idea - I'm not sure what else there is too add at this stage? It would be original research to conclude from this year's budget papers that the proposal has gotten the thumbs down through - it could still be funded in future years or even be funded this year from outside the annual budget process. While it seems hugely unlikely that the government would agree to a third ship and F-35Bs, there is a new Defence white paper being developed and which will guide the ADF's force structure, so it's unlikely that any big decisions will be made before its finalised late this year or early next year. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)