what countries actually need and dont need carriers?

Any country which conducts it commercial business over the deep blue sea, needs a carrier to protect their interests & free trade. How-ever they are an expensive piece of kit. 99.9% of the time you won’t really need one so the bean counters won’t give you one, then when you really need it their arn’t any and you end up spending more dosh replacing everything you have lost.
It’s the British way of doing things! (commie, socialist, liberal, establishment way to be exact)!!!

do mean all countries im sure Cuba need’s one and the Caribbean nations:dev2:. I see a Carrier as necessary if your country is an expeditionary nation and needs air support off shore. Of the listed nations Brazil is the one i have issues justifying as they have an old fleet of frigates which could be replaced or updated with the maint budget of San Paulo

Any country which conducts it commercial business over the deep blue sea, needs a carrier to protect their interests & free trade. How-ever they are an expensive piece of kit. 99.9% of the time you won’t really need one so the bean counters won’t give you one, then when you really need it their arn’t any and you end up spending more dosh replacing everything you have lost.
It’s the British way of doing things! (commie, socialist, liberal, establishment way to be exact)!!!

Country that will have an operative carrier in 2020:
– USA
– UK
– France
– Italy
– Russia (if Kuz will survive)
– China (may be, but I think so)
– India

and stop, guys. BPE isn’t a carrier (is a LHD), so both Spain and Australia will not have a carrier. Brazil (now his carrier can be used almost only for training purposes, in 2020 it will be not more than a museum) and thailand neither (no operative aircraft and no money to buy spare parts).

All of this country, I think, need a carrier. All the european have used their carrier in real operations (interesting to note, Spain never used PdA in a real combat op). They will probably need it again in the medium – long term. The others, is pretty obvious why they need it.

Just other two country need a carrier, I think: Brazil and Australia.

While, the Australian/Spainish BPE is not a true Carrier. Add a few F-35B’s and it could pose the same threat…………

I didn’t even bother mentioning the complete overkill with the US forces, don’t know all the numbers and types involved but i guess it could be useful when u need to drive continent to continent across flat tops

We’ve fought fair before and its over rated! You want to crush your enemies….:dev2:

Personally, I don’t see the need for the US to have 11 carriers. I’ve been against such a huge navy for a while and can’t see the need for more than 8 or 9 carriers–which in comparisson to other navies, still seems like complete overkill.

Sounds like a lot but half are usually tied up in maintenance or deep overhaul. Then what’s left you have to split between the Western (Pacific/Indian Ocean) or Eastern Fleets (Atlantic/Mediterranean Ocean)…..:(

If, we could afford more………….we would!:diablo:

Even though Canada has had some poor results buying second hand naval kit (Upholder SSK’s for example), I wonder if we could buy the Thai Carrier?

Interesting idea……………..but is it large enough to support a small number of F-35B’s?

I guess the argument boils down to who should really have an aircraft carrier (with the huge expense to up-keep them) for their rare use in a combat mission.

Besides the countries that need to police the world, most other countries could get by with a multi-use platform to use in cases of disasters, UN missions, humanitarian support…etc. Possibly a UCAV carrier (as has been discussed in other forums), to use when air support is needed. They would have a useful function for the vast majority of missions that such a ship would face (most requiring helicopters as the primary air element), and have the capability for some air support for those very rare missions that require it. A design like the Meko MHD-150 comes closest to this.

For a nation’s coastal self-defense, corvettes/frigates/FAC, ships that can lay mines, shore based aircraft and most importantly, submarines (especially the AIP ones), would provide the biggest detterent.

—–JT—–

Here’s a pic of an italian AV-8B during enduring freedom:

That’s another picture, with six bombs painted on the fuselage. This airplane partecipated at the same operation and made six combat missions in Afghanistan:

Remind, a carrier is not just a weapon: is more a political tool: to use it doesn’t mean necessarily go to war.
However, Kato, since 1982 Garibaldi was widely used: here’s another picture, with a A-129 Mangusta during Restore hope, in Somalia:

Finally, here’s two pictures of Garibaldi during his latest op, in Lebanon, 2006:

So, Kato, what you wrote:

When exactly did Italy and Russia use their carriers in “real combat ops”? Pretty much the only “busy” carriers there were the British and French ones in the past 50 years.

is simply not correct. Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon: that means 4 op between 1992 and 2006.

Regarding South Africa….I hope that this forum will be alive and well by the time she wakes up to her global ambitions, and that you will be here. So i can say I toldya so 😀

It doesn’t matter what global ambitions South Africa may have. Ambitions without ability are meaningless – and the capability & potential just aren’t there.

When exactly did Italy and Russia use their carriers in “real combat ops”? Pretty much the only “busy” carriers there were the British and French ones in the past 50 years.

For Italy, the Garibaldi was use on Somalia, Kosovo and Afghanistan/Enduring Freedom (AV-8B+ made 9+ hour mission over Astan) plus Lebanon for the landing of the UNIFIL entry force and maritime patrol after the israeli blockade

All the european have used their carrier in real operations (interesting to note, Spain never used PdA in a real combat op).

When exactly did Italy and Russia use their carriers in “real combat ops”? Pretty much the only “busy” carriers there were the British and French ones in the past 50 years.

No challengers in her region. You’ve said it yourself. You’re not even presenting arguments to support your claim, but arguments to support my position: :p South Africa is a regional power, with the potential to dominate her region, & make intervention there difficult or expensive for an outside power. Your arguments about Canada relate to regional geo-politics, & Canadas regional status. What you say about Australia (disregarding the offensive language) is irrelevant to your claims, as current political stance has no relationship to potential.

You appear to be incapable of perceiving the difference between regional & global reach (& a superpower, by definition, is global), & between current status & potential.

Regarding South Africa….I hope that this forum will be alive and well by the time she wakes up to her global ambitions, and that you will be here. So i can say I toldya so 😀

Chti is right: Spain plans to keep the PdA operational until replaced by another dedicated STOVL carrier. Juan Carlos I is not a replacement, for PdA, but for the old ex-USN LSTs. Her main sole is as an LHD, with a part-time role as supplement to the real carrier (now PdA, but a new carrier eventually) when that is unavailable. Spain should therefore be on that list.

Thanks God, Spain never used PdA in real combat…

I hope never will, neither Spain nor any other country.

Apart of that, Spain is operating without interruption a carrier since 1967, so once more I must state that a carrier is central to the Spanish naval doctrine.

Even the major effort of designing and building 5 Aegis frigates is difficult to understand without a Carrier to be escorted. Spanish navy has always said that PdA will be replaced by another Carrier at about 2020, and therefore, PdA is being refitted to keep on sailing until then. Soon, will have the help of Juan Carlos I, a ship that certainly is not a Carrier, but can be a great support…

Country that will have an operative carrier in 2020:
– USA
– UK
– France
– Italy
– Russia (if Kuz will survive)
– China (may be, but I think so)
– India

and stop, guys. BPE isn’t a carrier (is a LHD), so both Spain and Australia will not have a carrier. Brazil (now his carrier can be used almost only for training purposes, in 2020 it will be not more than a museum) and thailand neither (no operative aircraft and no money to buy spare parts).

All of this country, I think, need a carrier. All the european have used their carrier in real operations (interesting to note, Spain never used PdA in a real combat op). They will probably need it again in the medium – long term. The others, is pretty obvious why they need it.

Just other two country need a carrier, I think: Brazil and Australia.

Let me explain why. Because South Africa is not the **** Angola is. It has its share of problems but it has the potential and the capability to advance. It has a very good defense industry and if the ANC leadership can lead it the right way it has more potential than any other African state.

Canada is overshadowed by the U.S and they really do not need to be a Super Power. Australia is another vassel state who is now sucking up to China as well. This would ensure her safety even when China achieves her potential.

South Africa has no challengers in her region if he decides to move forward in the right way.

No challengers in her region. You’ve said it yourself. You’re not even presenting arguments to support your claim, but arguments to support my position: :p South Africa is a regional power, with the potential to dominate her region, & make intervention there difficult or expensive for an outside power. Your arguments about Canada relate to regional geo-politics, & Canadas regional status. What you say about Australia (disregarding the offensive language) is irrelevant to your claims, as current political stance has no relationship to potential.

You appear to be incapable of perceiving the difference between regional & global reach (& a superpower, by definition, is global), & between current status & potential.

What about Israel? A 20.000 tons ship with a dozen F-35 in the Arabian Gulf, for example, to open a second aerial front against them Aravis?

:confused: (that’s what we can call a suicide)

How? If you believe that every country with a given level of natural resources is a potential superpower, then why pick out South Africa? Why not Angola, or the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Argentina? Or Canada, or Australia? The last two are richer, militarily stronger, & have more natural resources than South Africa.

Let me explain why. Because South Africa is not the **** Angola is. It has its share of problems but it has the potential and the capability to advance. It has a very good defense industry and if the ANC leadership can lead it the right way it has more potential than any other African state.

Canada is overshadowed by the U.S and they really do not need to be a Super Power. Australia is another vassel state who is now sucking up to China as well. This would ensure her safety even when China achieves her potential.

South Africa has no challengers in her region if he decides to move forward in the right way.

They have the potential to change that. The will is lacking…but you don’t know the future.

How? If you believe that every country with a given level of natural resources is a potential superpower, then why pick out South Africa? Why not Angola, or the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Argentina? Or Canada, or Australia? The last two are richer, militarily stronger, & have more natural resources than South Africa.

German Navy´Carriers:

– Graf Zeppelin
– Deutschland