Talk:Canberra-class landing helicopter dock

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah thought so, so shold we change the name of the article or should we wait. Hossen27 08:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 The 'Multi-purpose vessel' designation is out of date anyway - this project now always seems to be called the 'Large Amphibious Ships project'.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)
replies: text: What should the article be called then. Canberra class What. Hossen27 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Canberra class 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Article title

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  With regards to the wishlist 

message: Are there any sources specifying why the Spanish design was selected over the French design? I'm working on a userspace rewrite for the Mistral class (the French design), and a sourced sentance or two on why the design was turned down would improve the content there. -- saberwyn 06:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember seeing anything coherent. Then-Defence Minister Brendan Nelson's press release on the decision isn't very helpful:  The limited speculation I did see in the Defence press was that there wasn't much seperating the two designs, and it was felt that a ship with a ski-jump would be a better long-term investment and there were benefits from ordering these ships and the air warfare destroyers from the same company. The July 2007 edition of Asia-Pacific Defence reporter might have something - I'll see if I can dig this up if you like. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I can't help with the why, but I hope my recent change makes it clearer which tender was successful. - Nick Thorne talk 04:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the Spanish design 

message: Transferred updated and cited deck space and hangar information from the Spanish BPE article including corrected aircraft capacity, edited to show that it is stats for the Spanish version of the ship, which I assume should be the same size and general layout.  It still needs better clarity than what I did to not make it incorrectly appear that the RAN will be operating Harriers, F-35B, Ospreys, and Chinooks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.246.212 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is unnecessary detail for this article, as the Canberras are not intended to operate VSTOL aircraft. As this info is arleady on the Spanish LH article, there's no reason to repeat it here, especially if you "assume should be the same size and general layout". - BilCat (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit was to clarify the deck space available for operating aircraft of different sizes most importantly including helicopters of the RAN and allied nations also maximum hangar space both of which are un-cited and possibly incorrect at several points in the article against current information with Spanish Armada website citation.  I was requesting above, here in talk a more clear way to state the documented information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.246.212 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All the figures I've seen for the Canberra class ships' aviation capacity are actually much smaller than those of the Spanish ship, so it seems that there will be differences in the division of internal space between aircraft hangers and vehicle decks between the two designs. That said, there is no clear information on how many aircraft the Canberra class will be capable of carrying... Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm respectfully reverting to the previous, cited content. Despite the similaries and commonalities between Juan Carlos I and the Canberras, the capabilities and operations of one should not be assumed to be identical to the other, unless sources can be provided stating the Aussie ships have this capability. If reliable, published sources have stated that Canberra and Adelaide are capable and intended to operate V-22s and transport partially disassembled Chinooks, please provide. -- saberwyn 10:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Thank you for providing a reliable, puiblished source stating updated information about the class. I admit I've been avoiding the RAN site where possible since their big move a couple of months ago... every time I checked it, it seemed a lot of content was missing or being uploaded piecemeal. Between now and the weekend, I will begin work on updating the article to reflect the updated information. -- saberwyn 08:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Aviation Capability

message: This from a Saab press release on the Giraffe AMB radar just ordered for the Canberra class ships GIRAFFE_Radar http://www.swedishwire.com/press-releases/5243-saab-saab-receives-an-order-for-radar-system-to-australia
Giraffe AMB is a flexible series of modular surveillance systems. Fully fitted, the system includes capabilities for simultaneous air defence, air and sea surveillance, air/land integration, military air traffic control and rocket, artillery and mortar alert. The system is part of Saab's continuously evolving radar program and provides highest performance for critical targets and proven reliability. Giraffe has become the radar of choice for armed forces worldwide, whether part of vital point protection or area air defence solutions. The Giraffe is in current production and in use with armed forces of Sweden, France, Estonia and the UK amongst others.
Saab's naval surveillance radar Sea Giraffe is in operational service on the Australian and New Zealand Anzac Class frigates and the more advanced Sea Giraffe AMB is being supplied for the Australian Canberra class amphibious ships.
I can see no reason that this system could not be used for fixed wing air control in addition to helicopter as this is part of the standard programming.  This contradicts a statement on the page about the planned radar being unable to handle F-35B traffic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.40.43 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Radar System

message: See Talk:HMAS Adelaide (LHD 02)#Requested move. -- saberwyn 10:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential pagemove 

message: http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/grid.fwx?ArchiveID=5003&Search=12130483  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.195.37 (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They are nice photos. Unfortunately, they are copyright, so we can't use them here. On a related note, does anyone know the date that the in-transit hull of Canberra arrives in Melbourne? I'd love to get a few days off work to get some (wiki-compatible) pics of the arrival. -- saberwyn 10:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of actual ships available from RAN website 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/canberra-class-landing-helicopter-docks-lhds/
*:Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Recent media speculation would have you believe that Tony Abbott is for certifying the Canberra class to carry aircraft. I know, crystal balling and all particularly surrounding the longevity of the current government, however, it is something to address --101.162.146.147 (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll believe the politicians making the 'don't-look-at-the-budget' noise when the navy confirms that order has been placed with the manufacturer. That said, absolutely zero of the media discussion I've seen so far on the issue is advocating a third carrier-Canberra, but is talking about possibly, maybe adding fixed-wing fighters to the existing two. -- saberwyn 08:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Various experts at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have recently posted on why F-35Bs are pretty unlikely on the institute's blog at http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/ (the short version is that they would deliver relatively little 'bang for the buck' given how expensive this capability would be and the trade offs - including the loss of the LHDs as troop ships - which would have to be accepted). I certainly wouldn't rule it out given that the PM seems interested in the idea, but its hard to see the ADF endorsing it (which is what ultimately killed off the carrier replacement project in the 1980s: the money needed to sustain the capability could be better spend on other parts of the military). Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this SMH article about Abbott ordering the researchers for the 2015 Defence White Paper to investigate acquiring the F-35B and adapting the Canberras for carrier ops, it quotes the Chief of Air Force as saying the RAAF hadn't asked for the B, but was open to the idea being considered amongst all the other ideas being considered for the white paper, while the Chief of Navy said "This has been a fairly superficial examination up until now because there hasn't been a serious consideration of this capability going into the ship." This Aviation Australia article (cited in the article) mentions some of the significant overhauls and operational changes that would be required for sustained fixed-wing aviation. -- saberwyn 13:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Canberra class, not a wish list? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Canberra-class landing helicopter dock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320184151/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Semaphore_2007_14.pdf to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Semaphore_2007_14.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706124110/http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=55&pubtype=6 to http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=55&pubtype=6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151102212348/http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/06/03/minister-for-defence-stephen-smith-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-jason-clare-joint-media-release-ocean-shield-the-navys-newest-humanitarian-and-disaster-relief-vessel/ to http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/06/03/minister-for-defence-stephen-smith-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-jason-clare-joint-media-release-ocean-shield-the-navys-newest-humanitarian-and-disaster-relief-vessel/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This Canberra-class is obviously a subclass of the Juan Carlos I-class. The complete subject organisation should be review : for example, the title "Spanish ship Juan Carlos I" doesn't look very adapted at the common way to name a ship at Wikipedia. Borvan53 (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A vast number of sources describe the ships as being the 'Canberra' class (including the Royal Australian Navy ), and the article notes that it's only a fairly minor variant of the original. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canberra-class : more a subclass than a class 

message: In the Ships section there is a table listing dates for laid down, launched, & commissioned. The table show a extremely lengthy time from Launched to Commissioned. That can be easily  explained. the laid down & launched events occurred in Spain, then the ships were transported to Australia for the remainder of the work. If possible; adding the dates for the transport might be helpful Wfoj3 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates