So (continuation), the modifications of the "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" Amphibious Assault Ship required to satisfy the Aussie Navy needs were made by NAVANTIA and Tenix, and at a later moment NAVANTIA and BAE, which bought Tenix in 2008. It sounds like if now BAE pretends that the "Canberra class" LHDs are their product, saying BAE is the main or prime contractor and Navantia the sub... Uuummm... I remember to have read some time ago that during the first years of the project, even after that BAE acquired "Tenix", that Tenix was the "associate" company of Navantia in Australia for the constructions of the ships... Anyway, the truth is that they are basically the product, construction, design and technology of NAVANTIA, with the ulterior modifications made by all Tenix, NAVANTIA, and BAE, that probably do not represent more than 10% or 15% of the total work, design and overall project... After all the reality is that the "original" "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" Strategic Projection/Amphibious Assault Navy Ship was launched in 2008, and Commissioned in 2010; and that NAVANTIA (a company from Spain), is one of the biggest and most advanced Navy/Maritime/Shipyards/Defense companies worldwide. Besides Military and civil vessels, they also make big engines, turbines, maintenance/life-cycle, systems, consulting etc. related to Navy/Naval sector and Defense.
Si, soy español y nunca hubo pruebas de aterrizaje de F-18, Mirages etc desde o sobre el L-61. Se necesitarían catapultas para lanzar los aviones y este barco no tiene. Tampoco tiene sistema de retención por gancho para aterrizajes. Dime donde lo has visto por que es imposible.
Nacho Lafuente Giménez Todas las operaciones de aviones, aterrizaje y despegue en portaaviones de la OTAN, deben estar homologadas, sus pilotos sean de F-18, Harriers or Rafale pasan anualmente pruebas de homologación de forma que, por ejemplo, los pilotos de nuestros Harrier pueden aterrizar en otros portaaviones de la OTAN y el R-11 no pasó nunca mas homologaciones que para despegue y aterrizaje de Harriers. Además, ¿para que iban a hacer esas pruebas, si despues no son capaces de aterrizar? El portaaviones Almirante Kuznetsov, tiene 300 metros de eslora, 70 m más que el LHD Juan Carlos I y 124'7 m mas que el R-11. Tiene una Sky-Jump, si, de 12º. Pero, además, el R-11 o el L-61 no tienen deflectores para desviar la salida de gases de las toberas del avion ni cables de retención. En el portaaviones Almirante Kuznetsov, para despegar el avión es retenido momentáneamente, por unos pequeños sujetadores en forma de cuñas de las 2 ruedas del tren de aterrizaje principal, que se levantan desde la cubierta mediante un mecanismo hidráulico, en forma similar a los deflectores de aire, para detener el empuje del avión con sus motores de post-combustión encendidos al máximo; justo antes del momento del despegue, los sujetadores de las ruedas se bajan rápidamente a nivel de la cubierta, mediante un pistón de aire comprimido y permiten, que el avión se libere de su retención, pase por encima de los sujetadores retraídos a nivel de la cubierta e inicie, el carreteo sobre la plataforma de lanzamiento hasta llegar a la rampa ski-jump para finalmente despegar del portaaviones. ¡¡Es el único portaaviones con este sistema!! Y te repito que no, que nunca se hacen ese tipo de pruebas en un portaaviones que esta pensado para otras cosas y otras funciones. Se realizan homologaciones para sistemas compatibles.
This video is about the Australian version of the original Spanish Juan Carlos I LHD. While they are similar on the outside, their internal layout is different. Spanish version focuses more on air power while the Australian version focuses more on amphibious assault capability. They are also slightly different in displacement. So my point is, THIS IS NOT SPANISH SHIP JUAN CARLOS I.
In the video he explains it is Navantia partnered with BAE Systems 7:18 . Are all you Spanish unable to pay attention to basic info provided in the video?
@@RR-us2kp This guy gets it. The Juan Carlos was the initial design selected but required heavy modification to adhere to the ADF's needs and specifications...
Remarkable design...fantastic. A lot of capabilty in one hull. A high value asset that needs protection. Did not hear much regards weaps...hopefully got sufficient surface to air and close in capabilty to reasonably protect itself from coming events.
In spanish is called LHD Juan Carlos 1 and is the ORIGINAL design of Navantia, the spanish shipyards and this is a copy, like the hobart destroyer, is a FFG-100 Álvaro de Bazán class Frigate, just is a copy.
This is not a copy... This ship was requested By Australia and the base ship design proposed was the Juan Carlos class. Navantia and BAE Systems then took to modifying and building it to the needs and Specifications required by the ADF. A copy would be if we (Australia) just took your ship design and recreated/reverse-engineered it to be the same as a juan carlos... You may think its a copy because in the video they did not mention Juan Carlos, but this is a demonstration and presentational video for Australia. The whole program was years in the making and everything Juan Carlos had to do with it was at the initial stages of development, not the final product....
Quoted from Wikipedia regarding acquisition program of LHD Canberra Class... "A Request For Information and invitation for tenders was sent to two European shipbuilders in February 2004; French company Direction des Constructions Navales (DCN) and Spanish company Navantia.[9] Shipbuilders from the United States were not included, as American amphibious warfare ships were too large for Australian requirements, and were either too personnel-intensive or could not operate the number of helicopters required.[10] DCN responded with an enlarged version of the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship; 2,000 tonnes (2,000 long tons; 2,200 short tons) greater displacement than the 22,000-tonne (22,000-long-ton; 24,000-short-ton) vessels active with the French Navy.[11] A design being built by Navantia for the Spanish Navy, the "Buque de Proyección Estratégica" (Strategic Projection Ship, later commissioned as Juan Carlos I) was offered by the Spanish, partnering with Australian company Tenix Defence.[11] Although 4,000 tonnes (3,900 long tons; 4,400 short tons) larger and with an increased troop, vehicle, and helicopter carrying capability compared to the Mistrals, the Spanish ship was still under construction at the time of the offer, and was not due to enter service until late 2008.[11] On 20 June 2007, Minister for Defence Brendan Nelson announced that the A$3 billion contract to build the Canberra class had been awarded to Navantia and Tenix.[12][13] Although an unproven design, the Spanish offer was closer to the RAN's requested requirements, and there were benefits from ordering the Canberras and the new Hobart-class air warfare destroyers from the same company." Again, Not a copy, just a proper business deal. Going by the timeline, your Juan Carlos 1 wasn't even fully built or named at the point of the ADF's request. Because of the modifications it would be false to call it a Juan Carlos I Class, so a new Class name was chosen...
Someone probably sold you guys out ,, seems to be a thing in the USA also.. well, one way for the corporations to double their profits. With just one r&d expenditure..
Sorry, but it is not that "Navantia and Tenix offered a 27,000t Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) design that resembled the Strategic Projection Ship (Buque de Proyección Estratégica) under construction for the Spanish Navy", as the comment say... The "Canberra class" LHDs do NOT resemble the "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" Strategic Projection/Amphibious Assault Navy Ship... They are very similar, and clearly brother vessels. The "Canberra class" are almost totally based on the Design and technology by NAVANTIA. Almost 100% based on the "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" and the technology and designs by Navantia, with the necessary modifications to adapt it to the Australian needs, systems and characteristics of the Australian Navy and armies.
Este barco es diseño de navantia España ,es verdad que bae, en el caso de los dos barcos australianos, una vez construidos en España los cascos al completo, montaron en australia los puentes, bajo la supervisión de navantia y un astillero local, lo que no entiendo es porque lo anuncian como si fuera de ellos el proyecto, a ver si los de navantia lo dejan claro.
The Russians apparently wanted to buy two of the "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" Strategic Projection/Amphibious Assault Navy Ships, to NAVANTIA from Spain, but lately they opted for the smaller in tons, and inferior in characteristics LHD from France, mainly because of a conflict with the Combat System Software that contains code from american companies, that the US gov did not wanted to export.
I find it kind of odd they didn't mention the use of VSTOL aircraft since they have the jump ramp. This seems like it would complement about 60%-70% of the capabilities of the American LHA/LHD fleet, with a proven hull. This is certainly better than reinventing the wheel with the HMS Queen Elizabeth which will cost 6 times as much as her predecessor with 2 times the capability or the USS Gerald Ford which will cost 2 times as much as her predecessor with almost the same capabilities. For a country like Australia and the missions they do around the South Pacific and Indian ocean this will be great add on. I just hope they don't forget logistical support, because that is what makes the US Navy work not the armed ships.
It's because it can't launch Aircraft, they kept the ski jump because it's too expensive to remove. Internally it has been redesigned so cannot operate fixed wing aircraft
Nice ship but why didn't they show ship defense like RCWS, Ship-to-Air missiles and Anti-Torpedo Defense? Also if Australia could incorporate at least 6 F-35B or AV8B Harrier II and operate them from this Ship it could be used as a Compact Aircraft Carrier!
all we need now are some decent choppers :) Geez I hope it's well protected by our destroyers. Doesn't look like there's much armament in place. it's not like we have a huge battle group like the US carriers do.
+fobfury ...With the RAN now acquiring 24 (?) of the MH60 "Romeo' to be used on all of our frigates, destroyers & LHD's, our anti Sub capabilities will be quite well covered. In regards to protection, our LHD's will be escorted by at least 1 destroyer for all-round protection (air, surface and sub-surface) while undertaking combat operations.
Sorry guys but the Video is correct, BAE is the major Contractor, Navantia is a Subcontractor to BAE. All Navantia done is provide 2 fully fitted Hulls.
Because the price involved in removing it from the design was prohibitive and better spent elsewhere. It was also kept in place because of potential future requirements such as fixed wing UCAV capability or the possibility of the F-35B. But the original decision to keep it was purely financial.
Gostaria passar uma ideia sera que a BAE consegue desenvolver anti torpedo com sistema de defesa aerea onde missil destroi missil para dar mais proteção aos submarinos quando um torpedo a ser lançado pelo inimigo o anti vai em direção ao torpedo e destroi mas o anti devera ser menor, rapido e ter mobilidade de fazer curvas
And the last news I have is that Turkey is going to buy two modifications of the "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" Amphibious Assault Ships to NAVANTIA, that will be, to some extent, built in Turkey under license and with agreements on technology transfers from Spain... Apparently the first agreements are already negotiated and signed; and the rest is a question of time and developing the project.
It's impossible to happen. It will just bankrupt the entire Ph Armed Forces. It's better to just use the same money to purchase JRC flight 2, corvettes, OPVs and 2nd hand ships.
And inst a heli carrier, is an Aircraft Carrier for Harrier Av8, F35, v22, f18, mirage, f5 and eurofigter. Have eurocopter tiger, Chinook, Blackhawk, Huey and Littlebird.
What planet are you on? This is an Landing Platform Dock, based on the Spanish Juan Carlos Class LPD. The hull is built in Spain and superstructure installed in Oz by BAE Systems. This ship is designed for amphibious assault, able to carry an array of helicopter types (and more usefully, amphibious assault craft which are launched from the well deck). The Spanish also operate (up to 6) Harriers from their LPD, and would hope to transition to F-35B (STOVL) if they ever manage to reduce their 25.3% un-employment and rub two pence/cents together anytime this century. It is not able to operate the types you mention. Grow up.
You both men are wrong, this ship is a LHD not a LPD and can work with Harriers and the future F-35B if it's finished successfully. Helicopters as well, of course. Nothing else. F-18, Mirage, F-5 and Eurofighter can't take off and landing from/on this ship. Not only the hull is Spanish there're other systems made in Spain. You can find on RUclips how these hulls were transported to Australia, so it was better to assemble the electronic systems once the ships were there. BAE is a minor partner in this project since these LHD's are a copy of the LHD L-61 class "Juan Carlos I". It's true that the Australian version have some changes to requirement and needs of Australian Navy. But it's a Spanish design almost totally.
Spain!! They're made in Galicia. My in-laws are from there and they don't call themselves Spanish or speak it most of the time. The rest of Spain doesn't have pale Celtic skin and play bagpipes. For the serious record though, Navantia has built more large ships recently for the Australian Navy than for Spain. While the LHD hulls are Spanish, the insides are not. Similar with the Air Warfare Destroyers - Spanish hulls, American engines, American Aegis system integrated with an Australian tactical interface, Finnish propellers, Euro torpedoes, Australian anti-anti-ship missile decoys and Australian fit-out. It's a combined effort that's produced some good ships; so deja de quejarte.
Only regret from leaving the Puss in 2007, while knowing this ship design had been decided for our future Amphib Capability. All they need to do now is change the view of fixed wing JSF and go for 6-12 vertical take-off. Let's use these Ships to their full capability.
This is the Australian version. It's different from the Spanish one from which it is based upon. Spanish version focuses more on aerial assault component while the Australian version focuses more on amphibious assault component. From the outside, they look similar. But the internal layout is different.
Lo que hay que ver y leer, Australia quiso renovar su flota de barcos anfibios para la armada, por lo que abrió las puertas, Naval Group (francesa) presento el Clase Mistral, Navantia (española) presento, Juan Carlos I y de las 2 eligieron el ultimo en 2007, ya que se acercaba a los planes de Australia, Tenix (que aun no lo comprara BAE) se encargaría del trabajo final como de su mantenimiento en Australia, el barco se creo en España, el astillero de Navantia en Ferrol, cuando se completo todos los componentes que Navantia debía hacer se envió a Australia, Tenix.... que ya en ese momento paso a ser BAE Systems Australia se encargaría del resto, osea ensamblar todo y meter los componente australianos, BAE no es socio ni nada en el proyecto, el 2º barco se hizo igual, no se hizo como en Turquía, que Navantia lo llevo a cabo con un socio local, ya que ellos lo querían así, el diseño Australiano es casi igual, salvo ciertas modificaciones, el tamaño y muchas de sus funciones son iguales, BAE Systems no puede atribuirse el merito ni en su catalogo dicho barco, igual que Navantia no lo hace con otros proyectos antiguos. Por cierto el barco..... bueno los modelos Españoles y Australianos, tienen la misma capacidad aérea, España hizo las homologación para el V-22, que como tienen la misma capacidad Australia tambien la tiene, conjuntamente hicieron para el F-35 que tambien las pasaron, otra cosa que acaben usando dichos aparatos, aun que la Armada Española esta interesado en los V-22 para su barco. Por ultimo este no es un mensaje para dejar bien a Navantia ni desprestigiar a BAE, por que esta ultima asta donde tengo entendido o es socio o se ocupo de los actuales portaaviones británicos, Navantia por ahora el único portaaviones que se le puede atribuir es al Príncipe de Asturias, que la Armada Española tuvo los huevos de usar Harrier en el barco siendo los primeros, a raíz de eso el resto de las armadas empezaron a usar dichos aviones en portaaviones, por donde iba, a si, que fue reemplazado por este barco que estamos discutiendo que ojo, no es un portaaviones y aunque la Armada Española esta interesado en disponer de uno (que con la situación actual esta muy lejos de lograrse) esa es la diferencia, aparte de que BAE fabrica submarinos y Navantia aun que ya lo hicieron, actualmente están con su primer proyecto propio y va con unos años de retraso, que el 2º submarino saldrá a la mar antes que el 1º..... en principio, que como le cogan el punto en el diseño el tiempo se reduce y el 3º igual acaba antes que las modificaciones que tienen que hacer al 1º por ciertos errores de construcción ;)
Australia needs a carrier , Cavour the Italian aircraft carrier with LHD capability would be a great addition to the Australian navy the Australian navy wants another war ship of about 27000 tones . If we had a ship of that class the F35s from that ship could from time to time when operating with 1 of our new LHDs be stationed ,take off from the LHD ,but refuel from the Cavour class ......just a thought
David this LHD ship is ready for F-35B. It can work perfectly as an aircraft carrier but only for Sea Harriers or the STOVL F-35B if its future naval version finally is successfull. Only USA and France have enough capacity to keep and design an Aircraft carriers with nuclear propulsion needed for launching war aircrafts. From the Cavour only can take off Harriers as well but it's smaller. Keeping aircraft carriers even if they are a pocket version is really expensive. The UK's Navy maybe won't finish the two aircraft carrier in project. They want to sell one of them and the other to work in common with France. The economic crisis doesn't forgive anyone. We've already retired in advance our only pocket aircraft carrier, the R-11 "Principe de Asturias" and its Harriers are working on our LHD.
Eric Richmond Thanks for getting back to me I know how the LHD's are ready for them But the Australian government is not ready for STOVL F-35's I hope they are . Anyway in one of the Australian navy's white papers they wanted another ship at 27000 tones so..... ? kind regards Dave
David Olver The real problem is that, the JSF F-35 STOVL project maybe will be cancelled. It's having a lot of problems, overcosts and delays. If finally, it is cancelled, it'll be a strong hit for the medium navies such as yours, British, Italian or Spanish and we won't ever have embarked aviation. Maybe the better solution will be work with advanced UAV's and Helicopters like Apaches or Tigers in its naval version.
David Olver The HMAS Canberra is probably capable of operating F-35Bs. Since Australia is buying 2, they can use one as an Amphibious Assault Ship and the other one as a light carrier.
i think we need more ships........subs......aircraft carriers.....destroyers.........we are continent on its own surownded by water and other strong nations.......wee need it now......and if wee dont.......well, we have all seen what happens threw out history when a more sofisticated country has somthing better,well its just about the math.its a very sad conclusion............aussie aussie aussie,
+Patrick McManus ...while our ADF would like to have everything checked off their "Xmas wish list", there is one catch....it all costs the taxpayers a lot of money to buy, maintain, staff and operate. We don't have a money tree in the backyard of the Australian Tax Office to pick off billions of dollars at a time. The Australian Defence Department need to be 'smart' with their acquirements/ investments into such expensive assets and to ensure we (the taxpayers) get a big "bang-for-our-buck" (no pun intended).
So (continuation), the modifications of the "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" Amphibious Assault Ship required to satisfy the Aussie Navy needs were made by NAVANTIA and Tenix, and at a later moment NAVANTIA and BAE, which bought Tenix in 2008. It sounds like if now BAE pretends that the "Canberra class" LHDs are their product, saying BAE is the main or prime contractor and Navantia the sub... Uuummm... I remember to have read some time ago that during the first years of the project, even after that BAE acquired "Tenix", that Tenix was the "associate" company of Navantia in Australia for the constructions of the ships... Anyway, the truth is that they are basically the product, construction, design and technology of NAVANTIA, with the ulterior modifications made by all Tenix, NAVANTIA, and BAE, that probably do not represent more than 10% or 15% of the total work, design and overall project...
After all the reality is that the "original" "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" Strategic Projection/Amphibious Assault Navy Ship was launched in 2008, and Commissioned in 2010; and that NAVANTIA (a company from Spain), is one of the biggest and most advanced Navy/Maritime/Shipyards/Defense companies worldwide. Besides Military and civil vessels, they also make big engines, turbines, maintenance/life-cycle, systems, consulting etc. related to Navy/Naval sector and Defense.
The Drop Bears and Emus will never know what hit them
What a curious thing! A design made by Navantia - Spain here appears as a "BAE" LHD. BAE is only the Australian partner in this project.
Si, soy español y nunca hubo pruebas de aterrizaje de F-18, Mirages etc desde o sobre el L-61. Se necesitarían catapultas para lanzar los aviones y este barco no tiene. Tampoco tiene sistema de retención por gancho para aterrizajes. Dime donde lo has visto por que es imposible.
Nacho Lafuente Giménez Todas las operaciones de aviones, aterrizaje y despegue en portaaviones de la OTAN, deben estar homologadas, sus pilotos sean de F-18, Harriers or Rafale pasan anualmente pruebas de homologación de forma que, por ejemplo, los pilotos de nuestros Harrier pueden aterrizar en otros portaaviones de la OTAN y el R-11 no pasó nunca mas homologaciones que para despegue y aterrizaje de Harriers. Además, ¿para que iban a hacer esas pruebas, si despues no son capaces de aterrizar?
El portaaviones Almirante Kuznetsov, tiene 300 metros de eslora, 70 m más que el LHD Juan Carlos I y 124'7 m mas que el R-11. Tiene una Sky-Jump, si, de 12º. Pero, además, el R-11 o el L-61 no tienen deflectores para desviar la salida de gases de las toberas del avion ni cables de retención.
En el portaaviones Almirante Kuznetsov, para despegar el avión es retenido momentáneamente, por unos pequeños sujetadores en forma de cuñas de las 2 ruedas del tren de aterrizaje principal, que se levantan desde la cubierta mediante un mecanismo hidráulico, en forma similar a los deflectores de aire, para detener el empuje del avión con sus motores de post-combustión encendidos al máximo; justo antes del momento del despegue, los sujetadores de las ruedas se bajan rápidamente a nivel de la cubierta, mediante un pistón de aire comprimido y permiten, que el avión se libere de su retención, pase por encima de los sujetadores retraídos a nivel de la cubierta e inicie, el carreteo sobre la plataforma de lanzamiento hasta llegar a la rampa ski-jump para finalmente despegar del portaaviones. ¡¡Es el único portaaviones con este sistema!!
Y te repito que no, que nunca se hacen ese tipo de pruebas en un portaaviones que esta pensado para otras cosas y otras funciones. Se realizan homologaciones para sistemas compatibles.
This video is about the Australian version of the original Spanish Juan Carlos I LHD.
While they are similar on the outside, their internal layout is different.
Spanish version focuses more on air power while the Australian version focuses more on amphibious assault capability. They are also slightly different in displacement.
So my point is, THIS IS NOT SPANISH SHIP JUAN CARLOS I.
In the video he explains it is Navantia partnered with BAE Systems 7:18 . Are all you Spanish unable to pay attention to basic info provided in the video?
@@RR-us2kp This guy gets it. The Juan Carlos was the initial design selected but required heavy modification to adhere to the ADF's needs and specifications...
Remarkable design...fantastic. A lot of capabilty in one hull. A high value asset that needs protection. Did not hear much regards weaps...hopefully got sufficient surface to air and close in capabilty to reasonably protect itself from coming events.
It's a Navantia, not BAE
In spanish is called LHD Juan Carlos 1 and is the ORIGINAL design of Navantia, the spanish shipyards and this is a copy, like the hobart destroyer, is a FFG-100 Álvaro de Bazán class Frigate, just is a copy.
Not exactly a copy they have a different Island to the JC1 with some differences in fit out. The Hobart’s have some differences in fit out.
This is not a copy... This ship was requested By Australia and the base ship design proposed was the Juan Carlos class. Navantia and BAE Systems then took to modifying and building it to the needs and Specifications required by the ADF.
A copy would be if we (Australia) just took your ship design and recreated/reverse-engineered it to be the same as a juan carlos... You may think its a copy because in the video they did not mention Juan Carlos, but this is a demonstration and presentational video for Australia. The whole program was years in the making and everything Juan Carlos had to do with it was at the initial stages of development, not the final product....
Quoted from Wikipedia regarding acquisition program of LHD Canberra Class...
"A Request For Information and invitation for tenders was sent to two European shipbuilders in February 2004; French company Direction des Constructions Navales (DCN) and Spanish company Navantia.[9] Shipbuilders from the United States were not included, as American amphibious warfare ships were too large for Australian requirements, and were either too personnel-intensive or could not operate the number of helicopters required.[10] DCN responded with an enlarged version of the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship; 2,000 tonnes (2,000 long tons; 2,200 short tons) greater displacement than the 22,000-tonne (22,000-long-ton; 24,000-short-ton) vessels active with the French Navy.[11] A design being built by Navantia for the Spanish Navy, the "Buque de Proyección Estratégica" (Strategic Projection Ship, later commissioned as Juan Carlos I) was offered by the Spanish, partnering with Australian company Tenix Defence.[11] Although 4,000 tonnes (3,900 long tons; 4,400 short tons) larger and with an increased troop, vehicle, and helicopter carrying capability compared to the Mistrals, the Spanish ship was still under construction at the time of the offer, and was not due to enter service until late 2008.[11] On 20 June 2007, Minister for Defence Brendan Nelson announced that the A$3 billion contract to build the Canberra class had been awarded to Navantia and Tenix.[12][13] Although an unproven design, the Spanish offer was closer to the RAN's requested requirements, and there were benefits from ordering the Canberras and the new Hobart-class air warfare destroyers from the same company."
Again, Not a copy, just a proper business deal. Going by the timeline, your Juan Carlos 1 wasn't even fully built or named at the point of the ADF's request. Because of the modifications it would be false to call it a Juan Carlos I Class, so a new Class name was chosen...
Nacho Lafuente it’s not a copy because this one’s better 😂
Someone probably sold you guys out ,, seems to be a thing in the USA also.. well, one way for the corporations to double their profits. With just one r&d expenditure..
Sorry, but it is not that "Navantia and Tenix offered a 27,000t Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) design that resembled the Strategic Projection Ship (Buque de Proyección Estratégica) under construction for the Spanish Navy", as the comment say... The "Canberra class" LHDs do NOT resemble the "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" Strategic Projection/Amphibious Assault Navy Ship... They are very similar, and clearly brother vessels. The "Canberra class" are almost totally based on the Design and technology by NAVANTIA. Almost 100% based on the "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" and the technology and designs by Navantia, with the necessary modifications to adapt it to the Australian needs, systems and characteristics of the Australian Navy and armies.
El 75% de su construcción fue en España.
Este barco es diseño de navantia España ,es verdad que bae, en el caso de los dos barcos australianos, una vez construidos en España los cascos al completo, montaron en australia los puentes, bajo la supervisión de navantia y un astillero local, lo que no entiendo es porque lo anuncian como si fuera de ellos el proyecto, a ver si los de navantia lo dejan claro.
The Russians apparently wanted to buy two of the "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" Strategic Projection/Amphibious Assault Navy Ships, to NAVANTIA from Spain, but lately they opted for the smaller in tons, and inferior in characteristics LHD from France, mainly because of a conflict with the Combat System Software that contains code from american companies, that the US gov did not wanted to export.
Finally, it has been canceled.
Thanks jarhead,
I find it kind of odd they didn't mention the use of VSTOL aircraft since they have the jump ramp. This seems like it would complement about 60%-70% of the capabilities of the American LHA/LHD fleet, with a proven hull. This is certainly better than reinventing the wheel with the HMS Queen Elizabeth which will cost 6 times as much as her predecessor with 2 times the capability or the USS Gerald Ford which will cost 2 times as much as her predecessor with almost the same capabilities. For a country like Australia and the missions they do around the South Pacific and Indian ocean this will be great add on. I just hope they don't forget logistical support, because that is what makes the US Navy work not the armed ships.
It's because it can't launch Aircraft, they kept the ski jump because it's too expensive to remove. Internally it has been redesigned so cannot operate fixed wing aircraft
ruclips.net/video/yirsjY4S9wc/видео.html
Why Australia bought these in 2014 without considering the F-35 STOVL variant is beyond me. Same for Japan with their Kaga class.
Nice ship but why didn't they show ship defense like RCWS, Ship-to-Air missiles and Anti-Torpedo Defense? Also if Australia could incorporate at least 6 F-35B or AV8B Harrier II and operate them from this Ship it could be used as a Compact Aircraft Carrier!
Weapons does not have, can operate F35B or Harrier
ORIGINAL DESIGN FROM NAVANTIA, SPAIN
All that space they mentioned, rooms after rooms, think they forgot crews quarters, wonder how cramped they are, hopefully they are decent enough
all we need now are some decent choppers :)
Geez I hope it's well protected by our destroyers. Doesn't look like there's much armament in place. it's not like we have a huge battle group like the US carriers do.
Your new AEGIS frigates designed by Navantia-Spain with the American AEGIS system are very good to protect this ship, don't worry.
+fobfury ...With the RAN now acquiring 24 (?) of the MH60 "Romeo' to be used on all of our frigates, destroyers & LHD's, our anti Sub capabilities will be quite well covered. In regards to protection, our LHD's will be escorted by at least 1 destroyer for all-round protection (air, surface and sub-surface) while undertaking combat operations.
Why is there a ski jump if it doesn't carry jets?
It can carry jets like harrier and F35. It's just not showcased in the video
Thats Spanish design. Spain made ship. Dont talk like it was designed or made by Australia or BAE systems. Thank you.
Wonderful~!
Thanks For Sharing~!
¡Increible diseño de ingenieria Española! few final retouch from BAE
Made by Navantia, Spain.
Es navantia Spain no ”BAE"
Is Made in Spain !!!
Listening to the Narative, maybe not able to fit all ADF aviation assests - might have trouble fitting a C17. Would need lots of Vaso.
This ship is very suitable to be used as a fleet command ship. I hope someday Indonesia can have it.
Sorry guys but the Video is correct, BAE is the major Contractor, Navantia is a Subcontractor to BAE. All Navantia done is provide 2 fully fitted Hulls.
No.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Adelaide_(L01)
Why does it have a ramp if there are no fixed wing elements?
Because the price involved in removing it from the design was prohibitive and better spent elsewhere. It was also kept in place because of potential future requirements such as fixed wing UCAV capability or the possibility of the F-35B. But the original decision to keep it was purely financial.
Cause you never know when you're gonna need to squish a koala uprising on Tasmania.
I like it
It would be perfect for Brazil but our rulers forgot that the country has armed forces
In any vicinity of enemies supersonic rockets I think this ship is excelent high value target.
In battle this ship will not sailing alone, it will be guarded by bunch of frigate / destroyer that bring AAM.
Gostaria passar uma ideia sera que a BAE consegue desenvolver anti torpedo com sistema de defesa aerea onde missil destroi missil para dar mais proteção aos submarinos quando um torpedo a ser lançado pelo inimigo o anti vai em direção ao torpedo e destroi mas o anti devera ser menor, rapido e ter mobilidade de fazer curvas
No need to change the decision from having the conventional JSF's with STOVL JSF's as we now have our MRTT aircraft.
yes made in spain
And the last news I have is that Turkey is going to buy two modifications of the "Juan Carlos I (L61) class" Amphibious Assault Ships to NAVANTIA, that will be, to some extent, built in Turkey under license and with agreements on technology transfers from Spain... Apparently the first agreements are already negotiated and signed; and the rest is a question of time and developing the project.
Navantia !!! NOT Bae....
This will be a very powerful asset for the Philippine Navy
Its Australian
@@albanianantivirus6849 yeah but it would be nice it the philippines will have it soon
It's impossible to happen. It will just bankrupt the entire Ph Armed Forces. It's better to just use the same money to purchase JRC flight 2, corvettes, OPVs and 2nd hand ships.
And inst a heli carrier, is an Aircraft Carrier for Harrier Av8, F35, v22, f18, mirage, f5 and eurofigter. Have eurocopter tiger, Chinook, Blackhawk, Huey and Littlebird.
What planet are you on? This is an Landing Platform Dock, based on the Spanish Juan Carlos Class LPD. The hull is built in Spain and superstructure installed in Oz by BAE Systems.
This ship is designed for amphibious assault, able to carry an array of helicopter types (and more usefully, amphibious assault craft which are launched from the well deck). The Spanish also operate (up to 6) Harriers from their LPD, and would hope to transition to F-35B (STOVL) if they ever manage to reduce their 25.3% un-employment and rub two pence/cents together anytime this century. It is not able to operate the types you mention. Grow up.
You both men are wrong, this ship is a LHD not a LPD and can work with Harriers and the future F-35B if it's finished successfully. Helicopters as well, of course. Nothing else. F-18, Mirage, F-5 and Eurofighter can't take off and landing from/on this ship. Not only the hull is Spanish there're other systems made in Spain. You can find on RUclips how these hulls were transported to Australia, so it was better to assemble the electronic systems once the ships were there. BAE is a minor partner in this project since these LHD's are a copy of the LHD L-61 class "Juan Carlos I". It's true that the Australian version have some changes to requirement and needs of Australian Navy. But it's a Spanish design almost totally.
CR4ZYHOR5E d
Ohh Dee Veeeee I wish you were my son!
Spain!! They're made in Galicia. My in-laws are from there and they don't call themselves Spanish or speak it most of the time. The rest of Spain doesn't have pale Celtic skin and play bagpipes.
For the serious record though, Navantia has built more large ships recently for the Australian Navy than for Spain. While the LHD hulls are Spanish, the insides are not.
Similar with the Air Warfare Destroyers - Spanish hulls, American engines, American Aegis system integrated with an Australian tactical interface, Finnish propellers, Euro torpedoes, Australian anti-anti-ship missile decoys and Australian fit-out. It's a combined effort that's produced some good ships; so deja de quejarte.
They need some f-35s
Only regret from leaving the Puss in 2007, while knowing this ship design had been decided for our future Amphib Capability. All they need to do now is change the view of fixed wing JSF and go for 6-12 vertical take-off. Let's use these Ships to their full capability.
JJ Blake it would cost roughly the same to build two new ones
This is spanish Juan Carlos LHD
This is the Australian version.
It's different from the Spanish one from which it is based upon.
Spanish version focuses more on aerial assault component while the Australian version focuses more on amphibious assault component. From the outside, they look similar. But the internal layout is different.
LHD came out in mid 1980s in USA USS WASP LHD1 not a new concept design in part to accommodate LCAC hovercraft. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Navantia 95%------BAE 5%
Lo que hay que ver y leer, Australia quiso renovar su flota de barcos anfibios para la armada, por lo que abrió las puertas, Naval Group (francesa) presento el Clase Mistral, Navantia (española) presento, Juan Carlos I y de las 2 eligieron el ultimo en 2007, ya que se acercaba a los planes de Australia, Tenix (que aun no lo comprara BAE) se encargaría del trabajo final como de su mantenimiento en Australia, el barco se creo en España, el astillero de Navantia en Ferrol, cuando se completo todos los componentes que Navantia debía hacer se envió a Australia, Tenix.... que ya en ese momento paso a ser BAE Systems Australia se encargaría del resto, osea ensamblar todo y meter los componente australianos, BAE no es socio ni nada en el proyecto, el 2º barco se hizo igual, no se hizo como en Turquía, que Navantia lo llevo a cabo con un socio local, ya que ellos lo querían así, el diseño Australiano es casi igual, salvo ciertas modificaciones, el tamaño y muchas de sus funciones son iguales, BAE Systems no puede atribuirse el merito ni en su catalogo dicho barco, igual que Navantia no lo hace con otros proyectos antiguos.
Por cierto el barco..... bueno los modelos Españoles y Australianos, tienen la misma capacidad aérea, España hizo las homologación para el V-22, que como tienen la misma capacidad Australia tambien la tiene, conjuntamente hicieron para el F-35 que tambien las pasaron, otra cosa que acaben usando dichos aparatos, aun que la Armada Española esta interesado en los V-22 para su barco.
Por ultimo este no es un mensaje para dejar bien a Navantia ni desprestigiar a BAE, por que esta ultima asta donde tengo entendido o es socio o se ocupo de los actuales portaaviones británicos, Navantia por ahora el único portaaviones que se le puede atribuir es al Príncipe de Asturias, que la Armada Española tuvo los huevos de usar Harrier en el barco siendo los primeros, a raíz de eso el resto de las armadas empezaron a usar dichos aviones en portaaviones, por donde iba, a si, que fue reemplazado por este barco que estamos discutiendo que ojo, no es un portaaviones y aunque la Armada Española esta interesado en disponer de uno (que con la situación actual esta muy lejos de lograrse) esa es la diferencia, aparte de que BAE fabrica submarinos y Navantia aun que ya lo hicieron, actualmente están con su primer proyecto propio y va con unos años de retraso, que el 2º submarino saldrá a la mar antes que el 1º..... en principio, que como le cogan el punto en el diseño el tiempo se reduce y el 3º igual acaba antes que las modificaciones que tienen que hacer al 1º por ciertos errores de construcción ;)
España lo usa como portaviones y los proximos f 35.
Now build two more and buy some F-35Bs
Que cara más dura.
Australia needs a carrier , Cavour the Italian aircraft carrier with LHD capability would be a great addition to the Australian navy
the Australian navy wants another war ship of about 27000 tones .
If we had a ship of that class the F35s from that ship could from time to time when operating with 1 of our new LHDs be stationed ,take off from the LHD ,but refuel from the Cavour class ......just a thought
I've often wondered about the lack of a carrier in the Australian Navy.
David this LHD ship is ready for F-35B. It can work perfectly as an aircraft carrier but only for Sea Harriers or the STOVL F-35B if its future naval version finally is successfull. Only USA and France have enough capacity to keep and design an Aircraft carriers with nuclear propulsion needed for launching war aircrafts. From the Cavour only can take off Harriers as well but it's smaller. Keeping aircraft carriers even if they are a pocket version is really expensive. The UK's Navy maybe won't finish the two aircraft carrier in project. They want to sell one of them and the other to work in common with France. The economic crisis doesn't forgive anyone. We've already retired in advance our only pocket aircraft carrier, the R-11 "Principe de Asturias" and its Harriers are working on our LHD.
Eric Richmond Thanks for getting back to me
I know how the LHD's are ready for them
But the Australian government is not ready for STOVL F-35's
I hope they are .
Anyway in one of the Australian navy's white papers they wanted another ship at 27000 tones so..... ?
kind regards
Dave
David Olver The real problem is that, the JSF F-35 STOVL project maybe will be cancelled. It's having a lot of problems, overcosts and delays. If finally, it is cancelled, it'll be a strong hit for the medium navies such as yours, British, Italian or Spanish and we won't ever have embarked aviation. Maybe the better solution will be work with advanced UAV's and Helicopters like Apaches or Tigers in its naval version.
David Olver The HMAS Canberra is probably capable of operating F-35Bs.
Since Australia is buying 2, they can use one as an Amphibious Assault Ship and the other one as a light carrier.
Am I only one who heard "dicks" whenever the narrator said decks?
BAE should be ashamed of this video trying to say that his is their product.
Should’ve bought WASP classes
EGYPT NAVY OWN TWO OF THIS CARRIER
Fuck Egypt
Jorge, I agree
Egypt has two mistral class ships. A small French design. The two Egypt have were meant for Russia but sold to Egypt after Russian invasion of Crimea.
i think we need more ships........subs......aircraft carriers.....destroyers.........we are continent on its own surownded by water and other strong nations.......wee need it now......and if wee dont.......well, we have all seen what happens threw out history when a more sofisticated country has somthing better,well its just about the math.its a very sad conclusion............aussie aussie aussie,
+Patrick McManus ...while our ADF would like to have everything checked off their "Xmas wish list", there is one catch....it all costs the taxpayers a lot of money to buy, maintain, staff and operate. We don't have a money tree in the backyard of the Australian Tax Office to pick off billions of dollars at a time. The Australian Defence Department need to be 'smart' with their acquirements/ investments into such expensive assets and to ensure we (the taxpayers) get a big "bang-for-our-buck" (no pun intended).
+dmk19731......... i aapreciate your comment thanks for the response ,you seem to know what you are talking about..thanks........aussie aussie aussie,
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA IT´S 230 METRES
Poor quality of video.
Dislike for that
Una copia del Juan Carlos I
Australian accent, I prefer English UK acent
This is going to be a death trap. Why? It is single hull.
Johnny bizaro ....Name one aircraft carrier, LHD, destroyer or frigate that is NOT a single hull.
dmk19731
You are lazy and I will give you what you ask.
Well Nimitz class USS John C Stennis AC USS CVN-74 has a double hull.
Johnny bizaro ...Thank you for pointing this out. I stand corrected.
dmk19731
The most advanced submarines that are US and Russian are double hulled.
Search this baby, USS Virginia (SSN-774)
Thank you.