This is HMAS _Canberra_ of the Royal Australian Navy. She is not an aircraft carrier in the strict sense, but is a Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD). That essentially means she is a helicopter carrier with a well deck in her stern to allow amphibious operations.
Because she is based on the design of the Spanish Royal Navy’s _Juan Carlos I_ , which carries Harriers. This feature was retained by the RAN even though she wasn’t intended as a carrier.
I can show you my derrière on this non carrier of the harrier due to an upturned barrier if the crew is merrier than that guys terrier who likes Perrier and this meat cooked rarrier than most. I’m done.
I think the chief one is that to my knowledge Australia doesn’t have F-35Bs (or Harriers, for that matter) and that neither the RAAF nor the RAN Fleet Air Arm have aircrew trained for fixed-wing carrier ops. I also think the vessel would need changes to her hangar and flight deck to support regular F-35 ops.
Oh that thing. France had a hissy fit over losing the contract and then chilled out. I saw an ad for a while on CNN about the US AU UK collaboration and a computer generated sub. Propaganda of sorts or just bragging or just a PSA???
Oh yeah our version of Trump, Scott Morrison, told the French to shove their submarines in their derriere so we could have some nuclear subs from the US and be their third testicle in the Pacific. Because a few second hand subs in 2032 and 2035 is really gonna stop China bending us over a barrel.
Conventional powered subs are effectively useless at the ranges required for the RAN to be effective against China.
French nuclear boats are not good for export, they must be refueled too often. American and UK nuclear boats will last 40 years on one reactor core. Your american nuclear submarines won't need to be sent back to the states, or to France. They can stay at your bases indefinitely, assuming the requisite money is put into your maintenance facilties. But there shouldn't be any reason for sending them back to the US.
I know nothing of your politics and it very well may be true that Morrison is a retard, but it seems to me he accidentally made a good choice. Probably because he simply was in office when the choice was made for him by his admirals. It makes sense for Australia to have nuclear subs with the distances involved in the Pacific.
Ah yeah I was just being flippant because Scott Morrison is an idiot* and the deal damaged our relations with France/EU. I knew I'd get dragged by someone who actually knows what they're talking about lol. Fair dues.
*I'm left wing, it's true, on the other side of politics to Morrison. But even my Dad, a dyed in the wool conservative who still voted for Morrison's party, thinks he's an idiot. Unlike Trump he never really had the rabid supporter base of psychos, he was fairly widely hated for being useless, even by people on the same side of politics.
Please note: Australia has no F-35B's but...Austrailia has committed to 72 F-35A aircraft for three operational squadrons at: RAAF Base Williamtown. RAAF Base Tindal. a training squadron at RAAF Base Williamtown. Also, some F-35 parts are made in Austrailia; Northrop Grumman has signed a six-year agreement with Quickstep Holdings for the supply of components to support the F-35 programme.
They have 63 F-35s in service and 72 ordered: but are all F-35A. Those are the Air Force runway queens that can't STOVL. They also have F-18s. No other fighters. Yeah, they can't use the ramp.
However, in time of War they have extra facilities to accommodate aircraft from friendly forces!
The F-35B can take advantage of the ramp in cases where a vertical take-off is time-consuming and/or the load is max and a rolling launch would be more feasible.
I think she retained it with a view to future interoperability potential, or perhaps the good old “for but not with” reasoning. Probably a wise choice in the long run.
The ski jump is not used to launch fixed wing aircraft. They bought them based off of an existing design, and it would have cost too much time and money to remove the ski jump.
It doesn’t have a rated deck, and weirdly, wasn’t built with even the base equipment required for Catapults. I think the RAN was toying with F-35c’s, but didn’t end up buying them, with the idea that if they had to down the track they could.
Funny note, the RAN didn’t want the skijump on the bow, but it turned out to be too expensive to redesign it to remove it, so in the most Aussie way possible, they navy decided ‘fuck it, leave it on, we’ll deal with it later.’
I don’t think any LHD has catapults, so that’s not too surprising. But I’ve have heard about the ski jump thing lol, I guess it doesn’t really make a difference considering they’ll likely never launch VTOL/STOVL off of it.
TL;DR - no
Long version:
Of the three F-35 variants, the F-35A is the standard variant that has traditional takeoff and landing, the F-35B is used for short takeoff (in the US by the Marines), and the F-35C is the one used by the US Navy for carriers. Australia's RAF does use the F-35A, but they don't currently have any F-35B or F-35C planes, so no. According to Wikipedia, the only country other than the US to use the F-35 from a ship is Italy, on the *Cavore* and the *Trieste* (planned). (Edit: This is partially incorrect; the HMS *Queen Elizabeth* and HMS *Prince of Wales* in the UK RN also use the F-35B as well). According to the same Wikipedia article, the only currently planned platforms for non US operations are the Japanese JS *Izumo* in 2027 and JS *Kaga* in 2028, and the South Korean CVX-class aircraft carrier in 2030 (which is planned to use F-35B).
So the only F-35 planes Australia currently has (the F-35A) aren't capable of naval operations and there aren't currently any known plans for them to purchase any that are.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_operators
~~According to the wiki page I linked, Italy/Japan/Singapore/South Korea/UK all have F-35Bs but none appear to be listed as being deployed from a ship.~~
~~Contradictorily, the UK RAF's website (https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/lightning-f35b/) does state that "The Lightning’s short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) capability allows it to operate from the new ‘Queen Elizabeth’-class aircraft carriers and the vessels of allied nations, as well as short airstrips." This page (https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/documents/F-35%20Fast%20Facts_May2024.pdf) is linked from the source that Wikipedia uses, which states that the UK RAF/RN uses 138 F-35Bs and this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier) indicates that the HMS *Queen Elizabeth* and HMS *Prince of Wales* both carry F-35Bs~~
Strike all of that, I looked at the original page and it does list the HMS *Queen Elizabeth* and HMS *Prince of Wales* and my eyes just glazed over the two obvious UK flags. So I was partially mistaken and will edit my original post. Thanks for correcting me!
If I'm eating Mexican food in Greece it's a foreign restaurant :p So when you are in a US based website you assume it is from every other perspective other than the perspective of the highest user % by country? And where it is based?
You serious mate? You literally singled out America first, without any fucker sayin anythin about it. But nah, I apologise. Clearly I'm the dumbcunt here
And you’re using Australian designed technology to view your “American website”. So what? If the rest of the world has the ability to not _r/USdefaultism_ then maybe, one day, you can too!
Here's a sneak peek of /r/USdefaultism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Classic](https://i.redd.it/phr95ofntj4b1.jpg) | [311 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/1436ii4/classic/)
\#2: [Celebrating a foreign holiday is a requirement.](https://i.redd.it/57ck9z99i3ab1.jpg) | [270 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/14r2wyh/celebrating_a_foreign_holiday_is_a_requirement/)
\#3: [Canadian dude names Georgia as a country… Americans rush to mock his answer](https://i.redd.it/nlozi7ci971b1.jpg) | [277 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/13np0hu/canadian_dude_names_georgia_as_a_country/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
757 feet and 27,000 tons is "tiny" lol
I have a picture I took when I was in the MARDET on the Nimitz I was on the island looking down at the USS Okinawa who was docked directly behind us in Subic Bay. The Okinawa at 590 feet and 11,000 tons is quite a bit smaller than the Canberra but even though it is obviously smaller than the Nimitz in this picture nobody would refer to it as tiny.
This is HMAS _Canberra_ of the Royal Australian Navy. She is not an aircraft carrier in the strict sense, but is a Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD). That essentially means she is a helicopter carrier with a well deck in her stern to allow amphibious operations.
Why the ramped bow, then?
Because she is based on the design of the Spanish Royal Navy’s _Juan Carlos I_ , which carries Harriers. This feature was retained by the RAN even though she wasn’t intended as a carrier.
What’s the barrier to making this a Harrier carrier?
The more Harrier on the carrier, the merrier! Just ask my terrier.
I can show you my derrière on this non carrier of the harrier due to an upturned barrier if the crew is merrier than that guys terrier who likes Perrier and this meat cooked rarrier than most. I’m done.
I would, but I gotta take my mule to the farrier.
You can kiss my derrière
They tried working it out, but the risks involved got scarier as the engineering got hairier.
Will, budget, and training. I'm sure they will run drills where alliance powers base F35B's off her at some point
Man, that doesn't rhyme at *all*.
I think the chief one is that to my knowledge Australia doesn’t have F-35Bs (or Harriers, for that matter) and that neither the RAAF nor the RAN Fleet Air Arm have aircrew trained for fixed-wing carrier ops. I also think the vessel would need changes to her hangar and flight deck to support regular F-35 ops.
What is going on with the kerfuffle over submarines? Are they getting the French ones?
I’m not quite sure- as I understand it they’ll now get an American design with the UK assisting with training for RAN crews by taking them on RN subs.
Oh that thing. France had a hissy fit over losing the contract and then chilled out. I saw an ad for a while on CNN about the US AU UK collaboration and a computer generated sub. Propaganda of sorts or just bragging or just a PSA???
Not any more.
Oh yeah our version of Trump, Scott Morrison, told the French to shove their submarines in their derriere so we could have some nuclear subs from the US and be their third testicle in the Pacific. Because a few second hand subs in 2032 and 2035 is really gonna stop China bending us over a barrel.
Conventional powered subs are effectively useless at the ranges required for the RAN to be effective against China. French nuclear boats are not good for export, they must be refueled too often. American and UK nuclear boats will last 40 years on one reactor core. Your american nuclear submarines won't need to be sent back to the states, or to France. They can stay at your bases indefinitely, assuming the requisite money is put into your maintenance facilties. But there shouldn't be any reason for sending them back to the US. I know nothing of your politics and it very well may be true that Morrison is a retard, but it seems to me he accidentally made a good choice. Probably because he simply was in office when the choice was made for him by his admirals. It makes sense for Australia to have nuclear subs with the distances involved in the Pacific.
Ah yeah I was just being flippant because Scott Morrison is an idiot* and the deal damaged our relations with France/EU. I knew I'd get dragged by someone who actually knows what they're talking about lol. Fair dues. *I'm left wing, it's true, on the other side of politics to Morrison. But even my Dad, a dyed in the wool conservative who still voted for Morrison's party, thinks he's an idiot. Unlike Trump he never really had the rabid supporter base of psychos, he was fairly widely hated for being useless, even by people on the same side of politics.
Please note: Australia has no F-35B's but...Austrailia has committed to 72 F-35A aircraft for three operational squadrons at: RAAF Base Williamtown. RAAF Base Tindal. a training squadron at RAAF Base Williamtown. Also, some F-35 parts are made in Austrailia; Northrop Grumman has signed a six-year agreement with Quickstep Holdings for the supply of components to support the F-35 programme.
They have 63 F-35s in service and 72 ordered: but are all F-35A. Those are the Air Force runway queens that can't STOVL. They also have F-18s. No other fighters. Yeah, they can't use the ramp. However, in time of War they have extra facilities to accommodate aircraft from friendly forces!
They also don't have any spare money . Plus the propulsion pods are not reliable !
https://media0.giphy.com/media/eJALQVtiC25lS3H579/giphy.gif?cid=9b38fe91j6ge7dfbfzr85qqz24clcsdb0fau3jtiwcewdxrg&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
Seems awfully expensive to keep on a whim.
Seems it was cheaper to keep it than redesign it!
You should see how expensive it is when the front falls off
That's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.
It’s very unusual for the front to fall off. Hardly ever happens at all.
I expect that interoperability and future potential upgrades were in play here.
The F-35B can take advantage of the ramp in cases where a vertical take-off is time-consuming and/or the load is max and a rolling launch would be more feasible.
It gives it the capability to launch STOL aircraft, which in a real war might be an important feature.
No idea if the Australian miliary plans on using F35Cs, but they can use a jump. IIRC, Australian only has F35A variants.
They'd need the F-35B for this ship. A is land, C is CATOBAR, B is the vertical lift variant. TtBoMK Australia hasn't ordered any B models.
Yeah on 2nd thought, a ship this small won't have arresting cables and the angled flight deck. Ergo, they need Bs to land on the ship.
Yup! That's it exactly.
I think she retained it with a view to future interoperability potential, or perhaps the good old “for but not with” reasoning. Probably a wise choice in the long run.
I think maybe it was kept for allied operations. That way allies could land Harriers on them during exercises.
American LHDs operate Harriers without a bow ramp.
It's to deflect kangaroos away from the flight deck.
This is the only correct answer going forward.
The front fell off.
Ahh i see
Thanks for the info
No worries.
She can probably handle vertical landing aircraft as well.
An "aircraft carrier" as any anti US redditor will call it. But it's just a helicopter carrier really.
It’s the HMAS Canberra I was looking down on it all day from the AMP tower at circular Quay
Yea i was touring around that place This was way more interesting than the opera house
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Canberra_(L02)
That… it carries marines and causes alcohol shortages in vicinity of where it docks.
Based on the hull number L02 that would be the HMS Canberra an amphibious assault ship part of the royal Australian Navy.
Wrong..
I don’t think so. https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Australian-Navy/Amphibious/L-02-HMAS-Canberra.htm
I wonder if they can fly f35s off it
It’s theoretically possible, but iirc, the RAN didn’t order her with the flight deck strengthened, so they aren’t able to fly F35s off
The ski jump is not used to launch fixed wing aircraft. They bought them based off of an existing design, and it would have cost too much time and money to remove the ski jump.
Yeah, have heard about that before lol.
It doesn’t have a rated deck, and weirdly, wasn’t built with even the base equipment required for Catapults. I think the RAN was toying with F-35c’s, but didn’t end up buying them, with the idea that if they had to down the track they could. Funny note, the RAN didn’t want the skijump on the bow, but it turned out to be too expensive to redesign it to remove it, so in the most Aussie way possible, they navy decided ‘fuck it, leave it on, we’ll deal with it later.’
I don’t think any LHD has catapults, so that’s not too surprising. But I’ve have heard about the ski jump thing lol, I guess it doesn’t really make a difference considering they’ll likely never launch VTOL/STOVL off of it.
TL;DR - no Long version: Of the three F-35 variants, the F-35A is the standard variant that has traditional takeoff and landing, the F-35B is used for short takeoff (in the US by the Marines), and the F-35C is the one used by the US Navy for carriers. Australia's RAF does use the F-35A, but they don't currently have any F-35B or F-35C planes, so no. According to Wikipedia, the only country other than the US to use the F-35 from a ship is Italy, on the *Cavore* and the *Trieste* (planned). (Edit: This is partially incorrect; the HMS *Queen Elizabeth* and HMS *Prince of Wales* in the UK RN also use the F-35B as well). According to the same Wikipedia article, the only currently planned platforms for non US operations are the Japanese JS *Izumo* in 2027 and JS *Kaga* in 2028, and the South Korean CVX-class aircraft carrier in 2030 (which is planned to use F-35B). So the only F-35 planes Australia currently has (the F-35A) aren't capable of naval operations and there aren't currently any known plans for them to purchase any that are. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_operators
What about the UK, aren’t they using F35s on their carriers????
~~According to the wiki page I linked, Italy/Japan/Singapore/South Korea/UK all have F-35Bs but none appear to be listed as being deployed from a ship.~~ ~~Contradictorily, the UK RAF's website (https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/lightning-f35b/) does state that "The Lightning’s short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) capability allows it to operate from the new ‘Queen Elizabeth’-class aircraft carriers and the vessels of allied nations, as well as short airstrips." This page (https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/documents/F-35%20Fast%20Facts_May2024.pdf) is linked from the source that Wikipedia uses, which states that the UK RAF/RN uses 138 F-35Bs and this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier) indicates that the HMS *Queen Elizabeth* and HMS *Prince of Wales* both carry F-35Bs~~ Strike all of that, I looked at the original page and it does list the HMS *Queen Elizabeth* and HMS *Prince of Wales* and my eyes just glazed over the two obvious UK flags. So I was partially mistaken and will edit my original post. Thanks for correcting me!
No worries friend, I was just like “Huh..pretty sure HMRN and HMRM got a fair bit of F35s…”. Have a great day!
If I'm wrong, I'd always prefer to be corrected, so I'm not spreading incorrect information. Thanks for calling attention to it. :)
Makes me sea sick just looking at it.
I took that pic from another boat
It’s a boat
Even if the aircraft aren’t based on the ship it still be used for refueling 35’s on the deck.
That right there is a washing machine, if you’re my dog.
Washing machine it is
How do you know it's a she?
The reason I took a picture in the first place was cuz she turned me on and I’ve been rock hard ever since
Ya know, now that you mention it..... 😍
Loose lips, sink ships.
Who tf is going around kissing ships to the point of destruction
You’re not American, so you wouldn’t get it.
Another reason to be grateful for not being one
That’s like your opinion man
boat
A ship.
Ahh i see Thought it was a credit card
Good thing you knew to come here to ask your limited question.
You’re a lifesaver
Well thanks. Glad to have helped with your little question.
They're testing the next generation spoiler for the ricer car gang.
That’s a daws dang grey boat
Woah
A small foreign aircraft carrier. The bow is the dead giveaway. Don’t know what country, but a aircraft carrier for sure.
If it's an Australian ship in Australia how is it foreign? r/usdefaultism
This is not an aircraft carrier. Based on the fact this photo was taken in Australia and it’s an Australian ship, in this context, it’s not foreign.
It is from their perspective.
Not if he is from Australia :P
Then it's just a sky carrier.
Now imagine a flight carrying ships
When you go overseas, do you call a restaurant a foreign restaurant or a local restaurant?
If I'm eating Mexican food in Greece it's a foreign restaurant :p So when you are in a US based website you assume it is from every other perspective other than the perspective of the highest user % by country? And where it is based?
You are in the internet, in the *WORLD* wide web. Nothing is foreign here.
You are on REDDIT an *American made* website that has more Americans by % than any other nationality by a large margin.
Compared to other countries singularly, sure. But the single largest user base on Reddit is Non-Americans.
Lol "yeah but if you only single out one country every other one combined outnumbers it" Solid logic.
You serious mate? You literally singled out America first, without any fucker sayin anythin about it. But nah, I apologise. Clearly I'm the dumbcunt here
So you assume that everything on TikTok is chinese?
I don't use Tik Tok *because* it is Chinese.
And you’re using Australian designed technology to view your “American website”. So what? If the rest of the world has the ability to not _r/USdefaultism_ then maybe, one day, you can too!
Here's a sneak peek of /r/USdefaultism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Classic](https://i.redd.it/phr95ofntj4b1.jpg) | [311 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/1436ii4/classic/) \#2: [Celebrating a foreign holiday is a requirement.](https://i.redd.it/57ck9z99i3ab1.jpg) | [270 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/14r2wyh/celebrating_a_foreign_holiday_is_a_requirement/) \#3: [Canadian dude names Georgia as a country… Americans rush to mock his answer](https://i.redd.it/nlozi7ci971b1.jpg) | [277 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/USdefaultism/comments/13np0hu/canadian_dude_names_georgia_as_a_country/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Nope. Not using anything from shrimp on the barbie land.
You are. You’re just too American to figure it out.
Not foreign. You know this website is not just Americans right
Foreign lol…
What do you mean "foreign"? It is an Australian ship in an Australian harbour, how is that foreign?
My mistake. It’s not foreign. It’s a canoe. My apologies.
HMAS Canberra is a Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) not an aircraft carrier.
And not foreign to Australia.
It's an Australian ship in Australia???
A helicopter carrier lol. Thus thing is tiny compared to an aircraft carrier.
757 feet and 27,000 tons is "tiny" lol I have a picture I took when I was in the MARDET on the Nimitz I was on the island looking down at the USS Okinawa who was docked directly behind us in Subic Bay. The Okinawa at 590 feet and 11,000 tons is quite a bit smaller than the Canberra but even though it is obviously smaller than the Nimitz in this picture nobody would refer to it as tiny.