One of the QE class carriers to India (or Brazil or some one else)?

it might even start USN and US shipbuilders start thinking about lower personing levels.

:rolleyes:

The USN already has “lowered personnel levels” well in hand.

CVN-77 Bush – Ship’s company 3,200; Air wing 2,480 [total 5,680]

CVN-78 Ford – Ship’s company 2,180; Air wing 2,480 [total 4,660]

DDG-51 class – Ship’s company ~275

DDG-1000 class – Ship’s company 148

Hi Buitreaus i was looking at the Brazilian Navy PRM (Plano de Reaparelhamento da Marinha [Navy re-equip Plan]) and cant find anywhere this possible third unit with Argentina

IMO this is the an excelent news to me if true

It won’t show in the brazilian official papers yet. I’ll send you more info via PM, so we don’t make more OT.

imho, USN should license-build QE class (UK supplying powerplants) in lieu of future Ford class CVN probably costing over $10b per pop long term. Maybe could retain/mix 5 Nimitz, 1 Ford with 6 QE by 2025? USN should at least LEASE one of the QE, if nobody else knocked.

Wah! I missed this one when posted.

Can you imagine the uproar in US if the USN did this?! I type this as someone who has pointed out how much licence-built euro-designed kit the US has used. But buying capital ships from the UK?

Having said that (and being pretty clear in my mind that this will never happen) I like the idea. It might break the USN’s grip on biggest! most massive! best! mindset and it might even start USN and US shipbuilders start thinking about lower personing levels. If EMALs (or similar) could be integrated with the skijump it might even give the USMC the LPH/Strike Carrier they want.

Then the French, Koreans and Japanese all buy one or more and we have an allied forces common design. We cross deck, share extacs, have an economy of scale on spares, spiral upgrades across a larger virtual fleet.

Next step integrating CAAMM properly and allied land forces have the same SAM and it gets used on Visbys, Valours, Formidables, T125s, K130s, Albions, CVFs

Back in real land we all **** about making our own parochial, gold-plated, short run designs to do pretty much the same thing. Still at least that’s something which the UK can lead the world in, eh?

It is part of declassified navy planing from both MODs. A 3 ship series reduces the unitary price tag, while allowing full interforces operability, which is a stated goal from our countries. Keep in mind, that the navy aircraft will also be the same, and could very well share the training facilities too.

Hi Buitreaus i was looking at the Brazilian Navy PRM (Plano de Reaparelhamento da Marinha [Navy re-equip Plan]) and cant find anywhere this possible third unit with Argentina

IMO this is the an excelent news to me if true

Right, that’s clear. Thank you. Sorry, I got you mixed up with those who keep telling me ‘IAC 2 is definitely going to have EMALS’.

But you’re disregarding what he actually says. He does not say that IAC 2 will have EMALS, he says it may. He is saying something is possible, that perhaps it will happen. That is being translated as “It’s certain”.

He is actually expressing an opinion. He is not making a statement of fact.

I do not know how to put this to you more clearly

The current Chief of Naval Stall never said that IAC-2 will have EMALS, neither did he said that it may, or that it is a possibility. He was not expressing an opinion, he stated clearly (in his official responsibility as the chief of naval staff) that the design is to be different and more capable which includes the capability of operating AEW aircraft and tankers (?)

The previous Chief of Naval Staff, now retired, as a retired admiral stated that it (EMALS) is a direction (when it is available) the Indian Navy will prefer to go, some have taken this as a sign that this translate into the IAC-2 design including EMALS (they add the current chiefs statement of the carrier design evolving in capacity and the previous chiefs opinion of the direction IN will go, to reach at this conclusion), which is not correct as he was expressing his opinion (as a retired admiral).

Its like Kitty Hawk mix up.

these things are true about all developing economies, not specific to Argentina.
domestic currencies as a rule are held at a cheaper rate to the $ in order to keep exports competitive. China does it, India does it and so on.
btw, I think IMF et al do take domestic reporting into consideration. I don’t think they can estimate GDP without access to a govt’s internal data.

India’s informal economy for example is estimated by some to be about 100% of the formal one. on top of that our GDP measurement practices continue to be based on FY 93 or 94. changing that to some year in 2000’s will itself give a 30-40% boost to GDP figures.

The World Bank, which is responsible for the most widely quoted PPP GDP estimates, has a great deal of access to the internal reporting of most of the countries involved in their comparisons. Their 2005 benchmark, which is used (sometimes with adjustments), as the basis for almost all published PPP estimates for non-OECD countries, was done as a joint exercise with other international bodies & the statistical offices of the participating countries. In many cases, statistics were collected specifically for it, where local statistics were not thought adequate.

Some poor countries, particularly small ones, have World Bank or Eurostat staff more or less permanently assigned to help them with their statistical collection & analysis.

BTW, a lot of informal economic activity is captured by normal statistical collection, even where there’s no specific attempt to identify it.

Not true. Brazil’s economy is larger than both Russia and India.

Nominal, not at PPP.

According to the World Bank, latest estimates for 2009 –

Nominal GDP (billions of USD)
Brazil 1572
India 1310
Russia 1231

BUT –
Same source, GDP at purchasing power parity –
India 3784
Russia 2687
Brazil 2020

For most purposes, including those discussed here, the PPP figure is more useful & meaningful.

May be I should also rephrase my statement about the second IAC. The IAC 2 is very likely to have EMALS.

Yes that was the purpose, to show you how the opinion has been formed that the second carrier will have EMALS.

A direct quote of the current Chief of Naval Staff should constitute more than an opinion.

But you’re disregarding what he actually says. He does not say that IAC 2 will have EMALS, he says it may. He is saying something is possible, that perhaps it will happen. That is being translated as “It’s certain”.

He is actually expressing an opinion. He is not making a statement of fact.

seriously speaking, I don’t see UK selling either of the 2 CVFs. there is a slim chance that India might be interested in the ark royal though.

Interesting Buitreaux whilst I have always asumed that Brazil plans to build its own carrier in the future I didn’t realise there were any plans for a three carrier build with one going to Argentina.

It is part of declassified navy planing from both MODs. A 3 ship series reduces the unitary price tag, while allowing full interforces operability, which is a stated goal from our countries. Keep in mind, that the navy aircraft will also be the same, and could very well share the training facilities too.

Of course Brazillian shipyards are expanding and the current plans for technology transfer in respect of the Frigate replacement program so moving onto a carrier is a logical next step. Is there any documentation or reports about these plans? I would be interested in viewing them.

Don’t forget about the SSNs. The plans are the brazilian END, and Argentine Apolo (revised). Coming this January, a public revision will be made available, and a very clear picture will emerge.

This also has significant implications for the UK’s CVF build, if it can be shown that the South Atlantic threat environment will increase for the UK with a new Argentine carrier it gives more ammunition to the Royal Navy about retaining both carriers.

And they should. 2 hulls is the minimum for a country like the UK. They should be aiming for 3 hulls actually, not 1.

Interesting Buitreaux whilst I have always asumed that Brazil plans to build its own carrier in the future I didn’t realise there were any plans for a three carrier build with one going to Argentina.

Of course Brazillian shipyards are expanding and the current plans for technology transfer in respect of the Frigate replacement program so moving onto a carrier is a logical next step. Is there any documentation or reports about these plans? I would be interested in viewing them.

This also has significant implications for the UK’s CVF build, if it can be shown that the South Atlantic threat environment will increase for the UK with a new Argentine carrier it gives more ammunition to the Royal Navy about retaining both carriers.

In respect of the frigate replacement program in Brazil I think the UK should offer as part of the offset if the UK got the contract with Type 26 the building of at least a couple refueling tanker hulls, it would benefit the Royal Navy at a far reduced cost and help with technology transfer in respect of large hull vessels. Finally throw in the Type 22 Batch three as a sweetner and everybody is happy!

nice talking to you Buitreaux, but if we don’t stop now the mods will be painting bulls eye on our ID’s in no time ! 😀
cheers !

Same here Boom. I really don’t want to derail the thread, however, a global picture of the possible buyers, of the possbile sale, is needed.

In what regards a brazilian buy, I would have to say that is a very unlikely scenario. The brazilian MOD has expressed the need of at least 2 carriers, somewhere in the vicinity of 50.000t. The CVF is too large, too expensive, and does not cover the number of hulls requirement, and more important, is not built in SA.

By 2020, the plan calls for a 3 ship series to start being designed, and eventualy be built in the Brazilian south, two hulls going for the Marinha, and the third hull going for the Armada Argentina. This would depend greately in the ship size not beeing larger than 50.000t, and idealy, the NAes should be around 36.000t full load for the argentine navy to chip in.

So to summarize, CVFs would have to come at a bargain price and with some extras for the brazilians to get it. I honestly don’t see them buy the thing. Just like Msoul2k said.

Saludos

nice talking to you Buitreaux, but if we don’t stop now the mods will be painting bulls eye on our ID’s in no time ! 😀
cheers !

these things are true about all developing economies, not specific to Argentina. domestic currencies as a rule are held at a cheaper rate to the $ in order to keep exports competitive. China does it, India does it and so on.

I know Boom, I wasn’t making the point of only my country.

btw, I think IMF et al do take domestic reporting into consideration. I don’t think they can estimate GDP without access to a govt’s internal data.

Well, the last time they took a look was in 2005. They have been grossely underestimating growth rather since then. The IMF is forbiden here.

India’s informal economy for example is estimated by some to be about 100% of the formal one.

Tell me about it! I used the most conservative figure of 40%, but they range up to a 100% too down here.

on top of that our GDP measurement practices continue to be based on FY 93 or 94. changing that to some year in 2000’s will itself give a 30-40% boost to GDP figures.

Same thing here. FY93 to be precise.

A good bet, would place Argentine economy at one third of the Indian and Brasilian economies.

If India does buy the CVF will it go for F 35B ?

No, I believe that India wants the F-35C. Which, would operate from both the IAC-1 and the much Larger IAC-2. The latter being equipped with both Catapults and Arresting Gear. Of course that is just my personal opinion.

BTW India has expressed interest in purchasing several LPD/LHA’s. Which, could be capable of operating STOVL Aircraft. So, if India did buy the F-35C’s for the IAC’s. I may also order some F-35B’s at some point???

Quadbike, you are a wicked, wicked man. :diablo:

If India does buy the CVF will it go for F 35B ?

UK/India/France CVF’s

The CVF could be a ideal solution for the Indian Navy. As it has already stated that it wants a much larger Conventional Carrier. Than the current IAC-1 under construction in India. So, the UK could provide the PoW that is already in production. Which, could be followed by a second CVF constructed in a Indian Yard after the completion of the first IAC-1.

Then the UK could build a third CVF for itself. Maybe a fourth some years later for France???