LPH's (mistral, Ocean, etc)what are your views on them

Hawk, umm…which of Swerve’s (and the comments made by the rest of us for that matter) comments have you refuted? Because I don’t see any…

So, whoever disagrees with you, is a troll. Thank you very much, have a nice day.

Nope. Someone who refuses to acknowledge arguments presented to him, repeats claims which have already been refuted, misrepresents his own or others words, argues in non sequitors . . . Nothing to do with disagreeing with me, or anyone else.

But there aren’t any secondhand AV-8s! There are none for sale! I’ve already said this.

I’ve also already said, more than once, exactly why Cavour is not inferior to Wasp (etc) as a carrier, despite its smaller size, & why the manpower issue is only one of many issues.

You now appear to be trolling.

So, whoever disagrees with you, is a troll. Thank you very much, have a nice day.

Nope. Someone who refuses to acknowledge arguments presented to him, repeats claims which have already been refuted, misrepresents his own or others words, argues in non sequitors . . . Nothing to do with disagreeing with me, or anyone else.

Well, since you have done these very things, you just described yourself… 😮

Like I said, have a nice day.

…
Sure, but that’s not what I said. Right now, a Tarawa would be made available only with second hand AV-8s. Like I said, The F-35B would be made available later on, certainly not with Tarawas. So, I still think that in either case, Tarawa vs Cavour both with AV-8s, or Wasp vs Cavour also both with F-35Bs, the Cavour is always inferior, just because it is smaller. Except for the manpower issue. ….

But there aren’t any secondhand AV-8s! There are none for sale! I’ve already said this.

I’ve also already said, more than once, exactly why Cavour is not inferior to Wasp (etc) as a carrier, despite its smaller size, & why the manpower issue is only one of many issues. The 50% extra tonnage of Wasp holds three times as many men, far more space devoted to transport, a well deck with LCAC – all that is space & weight unusable for aviation. Several knots more speed (wind over deck) & a ski jump more than make up for the slightly (4%!) shorter deck, which is laid out better for fixed wing ops. That means a much bigger payload for STOVL fighters taking off from Cavour, & higher operational tempo. The hull shape & ski-jump enable fixed-wing operations in worse weather than Wasp – again, despite the size. The vehicle transport space is all usable as aircraft hangar – unlike Wasp. As I keep saying, she’s a carrier capable of other, secondary, roles, & far better at her primary role than a ship designed to do something else, for which fighter capability is an afterthought.

…
Agreed, except that I am not conflating these two.

Oh yes you are! Like this –

The Cavour is a multi role sea platform, capable of a variety of roles that would require a seperate ship for each in another larger navy. The same goes for Juan Carlos I. Italy or Spain could never afford a real carrier. The solution they picked is ideal: They get a floating hospital, a large transport, a helicopter carrier, an amfibious assault ship, a command ship, plus some *aircraft carrier* ability with a tiny air wing of a few VTOL fighters.

You lump them together, describe them as the same.

I think you are now trolling

Well if you compare the Su-33 with the Harrier, I believe you’ll get your answer as to whether the Kuz is a carrier or not. 🙂

Sorry don’t understand this point at all, they are very different aircraft, where do you want me to start listing their differences? and what barring does that have on the ship they are launched as being called an aircraft carrier?

Anyway, assuming that “Built to operate fixed wing aircraft even if they are only of the STOVL variety” is the sole presupposition for a vessel to be named aircraft carrier, then yes, the Cavour is an aircraft carrier. I do not agree with this definition but it obviously doesn’t matter, that’s just me. I believe an aircraft carrier sould operate a substantial number of high performance jet fighters as well other assets, early warning aircraft and so on. The Cavour is neat, but too small. I think it’s vanity to call it aircraft carrier, even if it carries a few Harriers.

What do you call a substantial number of high performance fighters? What are high performance fighters? Do A4s qualify? If not does the Sao Paulo qualify as an aircraft carrier? I wasn’t aware of a minimum size requirement for the designation of a ship as an aircraft carrier, if this is true then we may have to rewrite history as many of the ships referred to as aircraft carriers operated during WW2 wouldn’t be large enough.

Seems like you’re definition of an aircraft carrier closely matches that of the US Navy CVN and anything that falls short isn’t.

Sure, they may call them floating casinos too. But then again, they may have invented aircraft carriers, but certainly they did not invent neither the language, nor linguistics.

:confused:

Do keep up! 😉

Well. There is really nothing to keep up with. You see, I made it clear from the beginining that I put forward this issue of US selling second hand LHAs and LHDs on a strictly hypothetical basis. On your behalf, you never denied that you actually cannot predict the future.

Buying second hand carriers or LHA/LHD has actually been of interest in the past, and the US has sold to its allies such vessels in the past (the spanish Dedalo for instance). It may be a good or bad idea, that’s perfectly arguable, but certainly not merely theory.

So, at the end of the day, we really don’t disagree. 😉

Built to operate fixed wing aircraft even if they are only of the STOVL variety; Cavour is definitely an aircraft carrier, I don’t recall reading anyway that an aircraft carrier has to have a catapult installed, does this mean the Kuznetsov is not an aircraft carrier?

Well if you compare the Su-33 with the Harrier, I believe you’ll get your answer as to whether the Kuz is a carrier or not. 🙂

Anyway, assuming that “Built to operate fixed wing aircraft even if they are only of the STOVL variety” is the sole presupposition for a vessel to be named aircraft carrier, then yes, the Cavour is an aircraft carrier. I do not agree with this definition but it obviously doesn’t matter, that’s just me. I believe an aircraft carrier sould operate a substantial number of high performance jet fighters as well other assets, early warning aircraft and so on. The Cavour is neat, but too small. I think it’s vanity to call it aircraft carrier, even if it carries a few Harriers.

I think the Royal Navy gets to call its new “ships” aircraft carriers if it wants to, after all they invented them in the first place.

Sure, they may call them floating casinos too. But then again, they may have invented aircraft carriers, but certainly they did not invent neither the language, nor linguistics.

The UK was offered ex US ships as replacements for Ocean (an LHP), this has since been dismissed for the same reasons that Swerve has already stated, no real indication anyway that it was ever given serious thought.

That’s ok. As for the Times article, I was not aware it was “rebuffed”, as you said. I found the relative thread, so I stand corrected, no worries.

You are mistaken to conflate Juan Carlos I & Cavour. The former is an LHD, a dedicated amphibious warfare ship, with a secondary STOVL carrier role (for which, BTW, it has to temporarily sacrifice its amphibious capability). The latter is a STOVL carrier with fleet command & modest secondary amphibious capabilities. The former is akin to a smaller Tarawa: the latter is a very different ship.

Agreed, except that I am not conflating these two. Read my post again.

As I keep saying, Cavour is superior to Tarawa in the carrier role. An F-35B will be able to take off with a bigger load from her deck than Tarawa’s, in worse weather.

Sure, but that’s not what I said. Right now, a Tarawa would be made available only with second hand AV-8s. Like I said, The F-35B would be made available later on, certainly not with Tarawas. So, I still think that in either case, Tarawa vs Cavour both with AV-8s, or Wasp vs Cavour also both with F-35Bs, the Cavour is always inferior, just because it is smaller. Except for the manpower issue.

I’m afraid it’s not at all obvious, because of the lack of second-hand AV-8s. The USMC is having to manage airframe hours carefully on its current fleet to keep them in service until they can be replaced by F-35B.

If any LHD/LHA were to be given away, it would only be with its air wing of at least 8-10 AV-8Bs which either way were operating from her. .

But what countries of their size & ambitions are there? Are there any you can name which might be interested in a Tarawa? I can’t think of one.

Neither can I, not right now anyway. 😉

Except that the discussion was about their value as aircraft carriers.

One of the two previous french carriers, the Foch I think was degraded to helo carrier role at some point. So was Arromanches even before that. Still, they both begun as aircraft carriers. I mean, It’s not that it has not happened again. Thailand does not even operate its own AV-8B due to lack of funds. Does this make their carrier useless? Hardly.

No, it proves that the option was examined and rejected. Why was it rejected? Well, see above – all the reasons I’ve already given.

Which brings us back to the begining of this post I guess. Got nothing else to add.

My best and sincere regards.

Otherwise, I agree, but then the issue is not ‘too old and worn out’ is it? Rather, the issues become ‘too large’, ‘too manpower intensive’ or more in general ‘not suited to naval requirements of receiving countries’.

Something of both, I think. For navies requiring a high availability & optempo, they’re too old & worn out, but that only affects the choice if your other criteria don’t preclude them.

The Newport-class have had plenty of takers because most of them were retired in pretty good condition, relatively young (as little as 21 years in commission, in the best cases). They’re also a size that suits quite a few navies. The RN managed to sell on some of its Round Table class* (one new built in the 1980s, one rebuilt in the 1990s), for the same reasons. The Austin/Trenton-class are not proving so popular, because all the same factors are against them: they’ve had more use, fewer navies want ships that size, & those that do generally prefer & can afford new ships, of which there’s a good selection in that range, e.g. the excellent Dutch ones.

*Fate of those ships –
Sir Bedivere – rebuilt 1994-8, sold to Brazil 2008, renamed Almirante Saboia
Sir Galahad (1) lost in action 1982
Sir Galahad (2) commissioned 1988, sold to Brazil 2007 as Garcia d’Avila
Sir Geraint – scrapped India 2005
Sir Lancelot – sold 1989, commercial service 1989-92, Singapore navy 1992-2003, commercial 2003-? Seen beached at Chittagong scrapyard 2008
Sir Percivale – decommissioned 2004, scrapped Liverpool December 2009
Sir Tristram – rebuilt 1985 after bomb damage 1982, relegated to alongside training 2005

Note that the three original ships which did not have extensive rebuilds have all been scrapped. Also note that the RN abandoned plans for life-extending rebuilds after one ship, as they proved too expensive.

Cavour is not a real carrier. When I hear the word carrier, the first image that comes in my mind is that of USS Nimitz and the likes with at least catapult ability. The Cavour is a multi role sea platform, capable of a variety of roles that would require a seperate ship for each in another larger navy. The same goes for Juan Carlos I.
Italy or Spain could never afford a real carrier. The solution they picked is ideal: They get a floating hospital, a large transport, a helicopter carrier, an amfibious assault ship, a command ship, plus some *aircraft carrier* ability with a tiny air wing of a few VTOL fighters.

You are mistaken to conflate Juan Carlos I & Cavour. The former is an LHD, a dedicated amphibious warfare ship, with a secondary STOVL carrier role (for which, BTW, it has to temporarily sacrifice its amphibious capability). The latter is a STOVL carrier with fleet command & modest secondary amphibious capabilities. The former is akin to a smaller Tarawa: the latter is a very different ship.

All these, but to a larger scale, can also be done by Tarawas. I still cannot see how it is better than Tarawa, again, save for age and manpower.

As I keep saying, Cavour is superior to Tarawa in the carrier role. An F-35B will be able to take off with a bigger load from her deck than Tarawa’s, in worse weather. She has more jet fuel bunkerage. Etc. In every way, she’s better-equipped for STOVL operations. That’s because she is, as I keep saying, a real carrier. It’s her primary role. For Tarawa, it’s a minor role, & she is (deliberately!) not optimised for it. Why no ski-jump, for example? Because it would lose a helicopter spot, which is considered more important than improving the operating envelope of STOVL fighters.

I should repeat that I did not mention Italy or Spain as potential buyers of Tarawas/Wasps. All I’m saying is that if a country of the size and ambitions of either of these countries need such a ship, used Tarawas would be not an ideal, but an at least interesting option.

But what countries of their size & ambitions are there? Are there any you can name which might be interested in a Tarawa? I can’t think of one.

I think the Foch-A-4 combo was the best value-for-money way for the brazilians.

Agreed, as a short-term solution. They already had the A-4s (& infrastructure & trained crews), having operated them off their previous carrier.

As for your last question, the answer is pretty obvious: Either second hand AV-8s (obviously it would be part of the deal) or, in the future, F-35Bs, if a slightly newer but still second hand LHD was acquired, such as a Wasp.

I’m afraid it’s not at all obvious, because of the lack of second-hand AV-8s. The USMC is having to manage airframe hours carefully on its current fleet to keep them in service until they can be replaced by F-35B.

OR no air wing alltogether, and use of the ship for all the other uses but *aircraft carrier*.

Except that the discussion was about their value as aircraft carriers.

Though your arguments make perfect sense, you cannot possibly conclude that there are no buyers, not now, nor in the future. The Tarawa to begin with and the Wasp class later on, will end their US Navy career within the next two or three decades…

Worn out, & even more dated than now.

BTW, I read at one of the other threads I cited that the UK was actually interested for two Tarawa LHAs a few years ago when they were searching for an Invincible class replacement. This proves that they is interest, the very least.

No, it proves that the option was examined and rejected. Why was it rejected? Well, see above – all the reasons I’ve already given.

no other navy has or needs the operational requirements and rediness level of the US Navy.

:diablo: Prove it :diablo:

Second hand is always second hand, no question about it, but then again, how much would it cost Brazil to buy a brand-new carrier, or even worse, develop and built it indigenously? More or less than gettin the Foch? I say more, much more.

Once you add in the cost of maintaining, refitting, crewing and running foch, plus increased service life? Long term a new carrier is going to be cheaper, short term the second hand one is cheaper, but only short term.

Cavour is not a real carrier.

According to what naval authority?

When I hear the word carrier, the first image that comes in my mind is that of USS Nimitz and the likes with at least catapult ability.

Technically an Aircraft Carrier is any vessel whose primary role is the transportation and operation of aircraft.

The Cavour is a multi role sea platform, capable of a variety of roles that would require a seperate ship for each in another larger navy. The same goes for Juan Carlos I.

Cavour is a carrier, JCI is an LHD, there is a MASSIVE difference, and i’m not talking about the dock.

Italy or Spain could never afford a real carrier.

I think they would dispute that.

The solution they picked is ideal: They get a floating hospital, a large transport, a helicopter carrier, an amfibious assault ship, a command ship, plus some *aircraft carrier* ability with a tiny air wing of a few VTOL fighters.

So basically they can do everything a Nimitz can do, just on a smaller scale. PdA carried up to 29 Aircraft, if 24 are harriers, that is half the fixed wing complement of a Nimitz. Cavour is designed to operate the large F-35B rather then the Harrier and can carry 20+ (Wiki give 24 aircraft total) which is again close to half the number of fixed wing aircraft in a USN carrier Wing (48 F/A-18A+/C and F-18E/F).

All these, but to a larger scale, can also be done by Tarawas. I still cannot see how it is better than Tarawa, again, save for age and manpower.

Yes and no, as an aircraft carrier the European designs are better ships because of fuel bunkerage and armament storage and transport issues, however as an amphibious assault ship, yes its a better ship. Oh, and don’t discount manpower as an Issue, manpower, along with fuel are the two most expensive components of operating a warship during peacetime.

I should repeat that I did not mention Italy or Spain as potential buyers of Tarawas/Wasps.

Good, because they wouldn’t buy them.

All I’m saying is that if a country of the size and ambitions of either of these countries need such a ship, used Tarawas would be not an ideal, but an at least interesting option.

Or for the cost of a SLEP and a bit more and in roughly the same timeframe they can build a new build ship with lower manning requirement, greater fuel efficiency and a 30+ year service life remaining.

I think the Foch-A-4 combo was the best value-for-money way for the brazilians.

But not the best capability for money.

[quote]As for your last question, the answer is pretty obvious: Either second hand AV-8s (obviously it would be part of the deal) or, in the future, F-35Bs, if a slightly newer but still second hand LHD was acquired, such as a Wasp.[quote]

No AV-8’s or GR’s are available, all the current users are very carefully rotating their remaining airframes to keep them operational until they can be replaced by F-35B, sale of any GR’s or AV-8’s could result in the airframes running out of life before their replacements are ready for service.

OR no air wing alltogether, and use of the ship for all the other uses but *aircraft carrier*.

An airwing does not just consist of fixed wing aircraft, but also consists of rotary winged aircraft. For an amphibious warfare ship, the helicopters are the most important part of the air wing, with fixed wing aircraft a very distant second. Take away the air group, and you may as well buy an LST or LPD.

Though your arguments make perfect sense, you cannot possibly conclude that there are no buyers, not now, nor in the future.

Yes you can…..

The Tarawa to begin with and the Wasp class later on, will end their US Navy career within the next two or three decades…

And will be completely worn out and be ready to be turned into razor blades by that time

Allright, maybe it did not, but allthesame, Austal and other local companies have secured substantial work for the next years. Which would probably not be the case if a second hand ship was bought.

Austal is not involved in the AWD or LHD programs, their only RAN project has been the armidale class patrol boats.

Agreed. You said it mate, two ships, not two aircraft carriers. 😉

Two Aircraft Carriers. With one in refit and one in service at all times.

BTW, I read at one of the other threads I cited that the UK was actually interested for two Tarawa LHAs a few years ago when they were searching for an Invincible class replacement.

Lots of things get suggested in budget talks.

This proves that they is interest, the very least.

No it doesnt, things like that can be brought up as a possibility to emphasised how bad an idea it would be to actually go that route. Its politics at its finest.

UK ended up with the CVFs, but it may not work out after all, though they are far better ships in any respect, except for amphibian abilities.

Best regards.

They are carriers, not Amphibs, compare them to the Nimitz, Cavour, JFK, Kitty Hawk, PdA, not to the Tarawa or Wasp. If you want to compare amphibs, compare the RN ARG composed of Ocean, Albion and two Bay’s, to the equivilent USN ESG.

Cavour is not a real carrier. When I hear the word carrier, the first image that comes in my mind is that of USS Nimitz and the likes with at least catapult ability. The Cavour is a multi role sea platform, capable of a variety of roles that would require a seperate ship for each in another larger navy. The same goes for Juan Carlos I. Italy or Spain could never afford a real carrier. The solution they picked is ideal: They get a floating hospital, a large transport, a helicopter carrier, an amfibious assault ship, a command ship, plus some *aircraft carrier* ability with a tiny air wing of a few VTOL fighters.

Built to operate fixed wing aircraft even if they are only of the STOVL variety; Cavour is definitely an aircraft carrier, I don’t recall reading anyway that an aircraft carrier has to have a catapult installed, does this mean the Kuznetsov is not an aircraft carrier?

As for your last question, the answer is pretty obvious: Either second hand AV-8s (obviously it would be part of the deal) or, in the future, F-35Bs, if a slightly newer but still second hand LHD was acquired, such as a Wasp.

Except nobody else seems interested in selling them.

Agreed. You said it mate, two ships, not two aircraft carriers. 😉

I think the Royal Navy gets to call its new “ships” aircraft carriers if it wants to, after all they invented them in the first place.

Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle – Times

That article has since been blown out of the water repeatedly by Defence ministers and ranking officers in the Royal Navy, meanwhile the orders have continued for 2 sets of everything.

BTW, I read at one of the other threads I cited that the UK was actually interested for two Tarawa LHAs a few years ago when they were searching for an Invincible class replacement. This proves that they is interest, the very least. UK ended up with the CVFs, but it may not work out after all, though they are far better ships in any respect, except for amphibian abilities.

Best regards.

The UK was offered ex US ships as replacements for Ocean (an LHP), this has since been dismissed for the same reasons that Swerve has already stated, no real indication anyway that it was ever given serious thought.

Agreed. You said it mate, two ships, not two aircraft carriers. 😉

Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle – Times.

Do keep up! 😉 That article has been discussed here already. Basically, the Times correspondent didn’t understand what he was writing about. It has always, from the start of planning, been intended that the RN will build two carriers, of which one will be operational as a carrier at any one time. One dedicated carrier air wing of F-35B with RN pilots is planned, to be supplemented by RAF-crewed F-35B in an emergency (practical because STOVL carrier qualification is much quicker & easier than cat & trap).

It works like this –
Either –
a) 1 CVF in carrier role + 1 LPH operational
b) 1 CVF in carrier role + 1 CVF in LPH role operational
i.e. two out of three flat-tops always operational, with the third in refit, reserve, or working up.

When a), the LPH can be used to support carrier ops by the operational CVF if required, by functioning as an aircraft transport & parking deck.
When b), the second CVF can switch to carrier role if required, by embarking RAF-crewed F-35B.
In both cases, depends on operational priorities. An LPH may be needed more than more carrier capacity.

When the third ship is not in refit, all three could be deployed. In emergency, an RN ship can be readied for sea very quickly. I remember one of my aunts getting a phone call because her son’s destroyer was deploying at 12 hours notice, two weeks before scheduled to sail. Some of the crew (not my cousin) had to be flown out, because the ship didn’t wait for them.

The two CVFs will be identical, & will alternate in the carrier & LPH roles.

Note that this is not new, as the Times wrongly thought. It’s how the current two operational Invincible-class & Ocean work, & it’s always been the plan for CVF.

I’ll answer the rest of your post later.

It works if you’re content with modest availability, or don’t mind keeping lots of people constantly fiddling with it to keep it working.

Or… keep them* working. 😉

But in any case, this is of limited relevance to the USN LHDs. They’re very different ships, useful for fewer navies. They have steam turbine propulsion, with all that implies, very unlike the diesels of the Newport-class. They’re several times the size, with almost 5 times the crew.

Agreed again, not many navies could afford or use a Tarawa. And most of those that could, have mostly figured out other solutions for the time being.

*the people

It’s not just age, it’s also how much use the ship has had, what condition it’s in, & how much use you intend to get from it. As I keep saying, the USNs LHDs are maintenance-hungry. Compare the machinery with that of the new LHDS: even brand-new, they took far more manpower than the current ones to keep it operating, & that old machinery is just that: old. It needs constant patching & fixing. That takes skilled manpower, time, & money. It reduces availability. Look at how much time the ex-Hermes is available for use nowadays. She’s half a carrier, at best.

Most likely, any navy that would buy a second-hand ship of this kind, would not deploy in the same frequency the US Navy did. After all, no other navy has or needs the operational requirements and rediness level of the US Navy. Second hand is always second hand, no question about it, but then again, how much would it cost Brazil to buy a brand-new carrier, or even worse, develop and built it indigenously? More or less than gettin the Foch? I say more, much more.

Cavour is a real carrier. She can operate more STOVL aircraft, at a higher operational tempo, than Tarawa, & they can take off from her at higher weights. All this from a smaller ship. She also runs with a significantly smaller crew. Of course, Tarawa is a far better amphibious assault ship, but I believe the topic is carriers.

Cavour is not a real carrier. When I hear the word carrier, the first image that comes in my mind is that of USS Nimitz and the likes with at least catapult ability. The Cavour is a multi role sea platform, capable of a variety of roles that would require a seperate ship for each in another larger navy. The same goes for Juan Carlos I. Italy or Spain could never afford a real carrier. The solution they picked is ideal: They get a floating hospital, a large transport, a helicopter carrier, an amfibious assault ship, a command ship, plus some *aircraft carrier* ability with a tiny air wing of a few VTOL fighters.

All these, but to a larger scale, can also be done by Tarawas. I still cannot see how it is better than Tarawa, again, save for age and manpower.

I should repeat that I did not mention Italy or Spain as potential buyers of Tarawas/Wasps. All I’m saying is that if a country of the size and ambitions of either of these countries need such a ship, used Tarawas would be not an ideal, but an at least interesting option.

Sao Paulo has catapults. She can launch & recover aircraft that cannot fly off, or land on, Tarawa. Like Cavour, she’s also a fair bit faster than Tarawa (helps when operating aircraft). Needed a fair bit spent on her to keep her operational for a few years, but cheaper than a new carrier, & given the lack of spare Harriers, the only way for Brazil to get fighters to sea without buying a new ship. Which reminds me – what would you fly off this aged LHD?

I think the Foch-A-4 combo was the best value-for-money way for the brazilians.

As for your last question, the answer is pretty obvious: Either second hand AV-8s (obviously it would be part of the deal) or, in the future, F-35Bs, if a slightly newer but still second hand LHD was acquired, such as a Wasp.

OR no air wing alltogether, and use of the ship for all the other uses but *aircraft carrier*.

As I’ve already said, there are no buyers. Those navies which want carriers prefer real ones, for very good reasons. Those navies with the resources to operate such large amphibious ships prefer new ones, for very good reasons (e.g. Juan Carlos has 40% of the crew for two thirds of the capacity). Those countries in the market for old amphibs are only interested in much smaller ones, that they can find crews for & afford to operate.

Though your arguments make perfect sense, you cannot possibly conclude that there are no buyers, not now, nor in the future. The Tarawa to begin with and the Wasp class later on, will end their US Navy career within the next two or three decades…

Australia didn’t buy from Spain to support Australian shipbuilding.

Allright, maybe it did not, but allthesame, Austal and other local companies have secured substantial work for the next years. Which would probably not be the case if a second hand ship was bought.

BTW, the UK has two carriers currently building. Everything that has been ordered so far (a couple of billion USD worth, last I heard) has been bought in two sets, for two ships.

Agreed. You said it mate, two ships, not two aircraft carriers. 😉

Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle – Times

The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.

[…]

It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.

[…]

The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit…

BTW, I read at one of the other threads I cited that the UK was actually interested for two Tarawa LHAs a few years ago when they were searching for an Invincible class replacement. This proves that they is interest, the very least. UK ended up with the CVFs, but it may not work out after all, though they are far better ships in any respect, except for amphibian abilities.

Best regards.

But rather than just use them as they were, you chose to CONVERT them for AUS$ 400 million. Many nations adopted ex-USN vessels succesfully over the years, e.g. frigates and destroyers. But somehow this doesn’t work with larger unit? Come on.

It works if you’re content with modest availability, or don’t mind keeping lots of people constantly fiddling with it to keep it working. It’s acceptable for relatively poor countries with plenty of skilled people available at modest wages. But note that if you want to keep costs down on an amphibious ship, there’s an alternative: a bare-bones new ship like the Indonesian Makasar LPDs. There’s a yard in Korea which can build ’em pretty damn quick, for the price of a refit for an old US LPD.

Someone blundered badly in Australia. Those ships were unsuitable for the planned role, as bought, & converting was needed, & planned & budgeted for. But the keel-up refit, replacing rusted plates, etc. that was also needed wasn’t budgeted for, & added greatly to the cost of the conversion. And that was due to the age of the ships.

Countries that are content with pretty low usage, or that want to keep ships for only a few years, can get by with very old ships.

Note that Spain bought two of the three newest Newports. Of those, one has already been decommissioned, & the other should go this year. Comparing with the age of Tarawa, Wasp, etc, we see that if the latter have the same useful life, Tarawa has about 3 or 4 years left. Worth accepting into service? I think not. The ships Peru is taking have been laid up for over 15 years, which is easier on a ship than being at sea. The first Mexican ship spent 8 years laid up before being transferred, & despite being older, still has several fewer years in commission than Tarawa – just like the Taiwanese & Brazilian ships.

But in any case, this is of limited relevance to the USN LHDs. They’re very different ships, useful for fewer navies. They have steam turbine propulsion, with all that implies, very unlike the diesels of the Newport-class. They’re several times the size, with almost 5 times the crew.

We only took the two, and after the way the RAN got stung with the newports I doubt the RAN would ever consider the “cheap” route of purchasing ex-USN ships at the end of their USN service lives ever again.

But rather than just use them as they were, you chose to CONVERT them for AUS$ 400 million. Many nations adopted ex-USN vessels succesfully over the years, e.g. frigates and destroyers. But somehow this doesn’t work with larger unit? Come on.

Australia didn’t buy from Spain to support Australian shipbuilding. Its past experience with old US amphibious ships was that it cost at least as much & took as long to refurbish & upgrade them to the standard the RAN expects as buying new ships. You see, the RAN is not content with harbour queens that need long layups at frequent intervals, nor with worn-out machinery which needs constant nursing, & for which spares are no longer made, & have to be fabricated to special order, or the other drawbacks of very old ships which have not been modernised.

Re. cost: But is that because of the conditions of the ships, or because of the condition of Australian shipyards/defence industry/politics?

The RAN elected to purchase two Newports LSTs in 1994 for the combined price of AU$61 million (US$40 million), with the intention of converting each into a combined pocket helicopter carrier and amphibious warfare transport.

After transferring into the RAN and arriving in Australia, Kanimbla and Manoora spent two years docked at Fleet Base East before they were moved to Forgacs Dockyard at Newcastle, New South Wales in June 1996, where they underwent conversion from tank landing ships to amphibious warfare transports. The conversion required the main features of the Newport class, the bow doors, derrick, and tank ramp, to be removed. A hangar for three Sea King or four Blackhawk helicopters was added, while the aft helicopter deck was reinforced.The deck forward of the superstructure was converted to carry two LCM-8 landing craft, which are launched and recovered by a single 70 ton crane. When the LCM-8s are deployed, the area would function as a third helicopter landing spot. Accommodation was provided for up to 450 soldiers, while improved medical facilities and an upgraded galley were also installed. The refit was planned to last from 1995 to 1996, with Manoora upgraded first. However, extensive corrosion was discovered in both ships.[gee, no one saw that coming] The refit cost for the two ships increased AU$400 million. Both ships are based at Fleet Base East. They are predicted to have a service life of fifteen years after the conversion.

Now, what was the main cause of the costs: the corrosion or the decision to convert the ships from LSTs to helicopter capable amphibious warfare transports? AFAIK, other navies have generally not made such drastic conversions of ex-USN equipment received

Yes, but how many of them are still finding takers, & who are those takers? Apart from India, which has never operated any ship with a dock, & wanted experience while deciding what new amphibious ships to build, recent transfers have all been to navies with a habit of operating old ships at very low tempos. Countries which used to accept old US amphibs (e.g. Spain, Turkey, Australia) are no longer interested. Add to that the very different size & role of the LHA/LHDs from the LPDs, & the potential market disappears.

Other takers of ex-USN LPDs Greece, Taiwan (untill 5 years ago operating 1) and Brazil (the latter still operating 2). Australia got much smaller LSTs with no dock from the US, not LSDs.

Otherwise, I agree, but then the issue is not ‘too old and worn out’ is it? Rather, the issues become ‘too large’, ‘too manpower intensive’ or more in general ‘not suited to naval requirements of receiving countries’.

Countries which used to accept old US amphibs (e.g. Spain, Turkey, Australia) are no longer interested.

We only took the two, and after the way the RAN got stung with the newports I doubt the RAN would ever consider the “cheap” route of purchasing ex-USN ships at the end of their USN service lives ever again.

Of course they are old. I never said the opposite. But then again, HMS Hermes was 35 years old when sold to India. She is 57 today, and still in service for the next few years. Certainly she too was costly to operate. The same with Foch. She was 40 years when sold to Brazil where will remain in service for the next 10 years at least.

Likewise, USS Tarawa which is left to rust, is 37 years old. USS Saipan is 36 and so on. I don’t see how age is a problem.

I used both Italy and Spain as examples. I know they have their own vessels.

How however is Cavour better than any Tarawa or Wasp, save for age and manpower? Anyone who might be interested would certainly fit in new systems and air wing. I think they are superior in every other aspect, no?

Agreed, and additionally, these countries must understandably employ their own shipbuilding industries. Though UK will probably get only one “real carrier”. Reality check? Who knows…

I was rather surprised when a few years ago I learnt that Thailand had its own tiny carrier. Same with Brazil… And India most likely would never get Kitty Hawk, but what about a Tarawa? So, one may run out of buyers, but certainly not rapidly. Either way, like I said from the begining, I put this idea forward just for hypothetical discussion, I mean noone can predict the future.

Best regards

P.S. This is a nice thread specifically addressing the issue of how many and which countries would either want or need an aircraft carrier of whatever specs. So, may I repeat: Certainly not rapidly.

P.S. 2 And this is another nice thread addressing the very same issue I put forward. 😀

It’s not just age, it’s also how much use the ship has had, what condition it’s in, & how much use you intend to get from it. As I keep saying, the USNs LHDs are maintenance-hungry. Compare the machinery with that of the new LHDS: even brand-new, they took far more manpower than the current ones to keep it operating, & that old machinery is just that: old. It needs constant patching & fixing. That takes skilled manpower, time, & money. It reduces availability. Look at how much time the ex-Hermes is available for use nowadays. She’s half a carrier, at best.

Cavour is a real carrier. She can operate more STOVL aircraft, at a higher operational tempo, than Tarawa, & they can take off from her at higher weights. All this from a smaller ship. She also runs with a significantly smaller crew. Of course, Tarawa is a far better amphibious assault ship, but I believe the topic is carriers.

Sao Paulo has catapults. She can launch & recover aircraft that cannot fly off, or land on, Tarawa. Like Cavour, she’s also a fair bit faster than Tarawa (helps when operating aircraft). Needed a fair bit spent on her to keep her operational for a few years, but cheaper than a new carrier, & given the lack of spare Harriers, the only way for Brazil to get fighters to sea without buying a new ship. Which reminds me – what would you fly off this aged LHD?

As I’ve already said, there are no buyers. Those navies which want carriers prefer real ones, for very good reasons. Those navies with the resources to operate such large amphibious ships prefer new ones, for very good reasons (e.g. Juan Carlos has 40% of the crew for two thirds of the capacity). Those countries in the market for old amphibs are only interested in much smaller ones, that they can find crews for & afford to operate.

Australia didn’t buy from Spain to support Australian shipbuilding. Its past experience with old US amphibious ships was that it cost at least as much & took as long to refurbish & upgrade them to the standard the RAN expects as buying new ships. You see, the RAN is not content with harbour queens that need long layups at frequent intervals, nor with worn-out machinery which needs constant nursing, & for which spares are no longer made, & have to be fabricated to special order, or the other drawbacks of very old ships which have not been modernised.

BTW, the UK has two carriers currently building. Everything that has been ordered so far (a couple of billion USD worth, last I heard) has been bought in two sets, for two ships.

Mmm, speaking of old and worn out, perhaps you should look into the history of the old USN LPDs classes: they’s always found takers. Lastest case in point: INS Jalashwa L41 (former USS Trenton LPD 14)

Yes, but how many of them are still finding takers, & who are those takers? Apart from India, which has never operated any ship with a dock, & wanted experience while deciding what new amphibious ships to build, recent transfers have all been to navies with a habit of operating old ships at very low tempos. Countries which used to accept old US amphibs (e.g. Spain, Turkey, Australia) are no longer interested. Add to that the very different size & role of the LHA/LHDs from the LPDs, & the potential market disappears.