Talk:Amphibious Assault Ship Project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canceled?[edit]

This article should be merged with the Joint Support Ship article or deleted as the project has been cancelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.217.130 (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source? Anyway, there is enough info here to justify keeping the article, whatever the program's status. Of course, we could make one article for all the canceled Canadian defense projects, but it would be very very big! We could call it Canadius interuptus. - BillCJ (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember reading in Jane's Defence Weekly or a similar magazine that both this project and the Joint Support Ship project had been put on hold. Canadian defence procurement makes my head hurt (and makes me very happy that I'm not a Canadian tax payer!). Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Embarrassing isn't it? I am a liberal Canadian (we are not usually as supportive of the military) but I would very much like to see much more money and upgrades to the Canadian Forces. I just don't know where the money will come from. NorthernThunder (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ambitious project of the Canadian Forces do not cancel. Until recently in the official journal of the Canadian Forces "The Maple Leaf" has first announced the design of the vessel and its function. The Joint Support Ship has resurfaced this week in the Canadian Parliament about the question of Canadian sovereignty in the north.
This story from January implies that the Amphibious ship project has been abandoned and that the JSS project is almost dead. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new speculative additions make the article too much of a Crystal Ball, which WP is decidely not. While the prospect of Canada operating such a ship may be exiting to some, adding information before the ship design has even been selected and ordered is going too far. And as Nick as pointed out, the current project is on hold to such a degree that is cancelled, even if the requirent does remain. Also, as I've tried to point out before, the arcticle is more about a program, not a class of ships or a specific ship, and as such, features such as the class infobox are probably inappopriate, as it gives the impression that there is a settled design, which there is not. - BillCJ (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently checked the 2008-09 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships and it says that this project has been on the backburner since about 2006, with only low-level development work on a Canadian amphibious doctrine currently underway (eg, thinking about the requirements rather than the ship(s) in an abstract way). It doesn't provide any details of possible ships, and certainly not the speculation this article is full of. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter/Aircraft[edit]

The CH-124 Sea King , CH-146 Griffon , CH-47 Chinook and CH-148 Cyclone were selected because this is the only helicopter in the Canadian Forces capable to doing airborne operations and evacuations.

The F-35 is not the official CF-18 replacement but this aircraft was selected in two different variant in 2000s the F-35A CTOL and the F-35B VTOL. The VTOL in the second largest country when the B model have sacrificed his internal fuel capacity for the large and advanced F-135 engine mean only one thing, Canada want a aircraft capable to be carried on aircraft carrier or similar vessels. If my sources explain only the point of view of many former CF officer is because the Amphibious ship was questioned by many about the future of the CF capacity for the 21st century and also recommended a C/VTOL aircraft enough strong to give a sufficient air supremacy against air,sea and land forces.

If your sources are the views of individuals then they should be presented as such, and not be given as the ships' characteristics in the infobox as you are doing. Not all of those helicopters are necessarily suitable of operating from ships and not all amphibious ships can operate CH-47 helicopters due to their size and weight. By the way, can you please sign your posts (by adding ~~~~ to the end of the message). Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted messages asking other editors for comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force. Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The british HMS Ocean (L12) can operate Boeing Chinook (UK variants) and also capable of carrying 15 VTOL aircraft ,why not the Canadian Amphibious Ship. The Canadian Amphibious Assault ship is something like a small aircraft carrier and helicopter carrier in the same time like the former HMCS Bonaventure and can transport a complete battalion with their equipment and vehicles. Here a picture of the HMS Ocean (L12) with CH-47 and SeaKing varriant [1] Der Kaisser 05:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that the Canadian Forces' requirements for the ships haven't been set and a design hasn't been selected (and may never be) that's pure speculation. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) One, there is no actual Canadian Amphibious Ship design as yet, so we don't know exactly what its limits will be regarding flight deck and hangar deck space, weight limits of those decks, and so on. Two, the CH-47 as built is not a marinized helicopter (engines able to operate in salt-water enviroments, etc.); the British Chinooks used for naval ops have been specifically marinized, if I recall correctly. Canada will have to specifically upgrade its Chinooks for sea duty, which costs money, something the Canadaian government has a shortage of. Honestly, I don't see the ship materializing soon, especially if a more-liberal government comes to power in the next few years. Speculating in detail about what helicopters it can operate is definitely too much Crystal Ball (see above). - BillCJ (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Amphibious Assault Ship Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amphibious Assault Ship Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amphibious Assault Ship Project. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amphibious Assault Ship Project. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amphibious_Assault_Ship_Project&oldid=1213085370"