I was trying to categories them based on designed roles, which, as seen by this little debate we are having, is not exactly easy. 😉

We have CVS/Sea Control, ASW, Amphibious. However some of these designs can do more then one of these, or do them with different levels of capability.

That is exactly it. And the ratios of those roles are defined by what else in the fleet and what the fleet is meant to do.;)

The problem being that once again even though the ships look the same, Ocean only operates rotary winged aircraft while LHA-6 will operate both fixed and rotary winged assets

Exactly, hence the extreme difficulty in categorising and comparing.;)

However the primary role of vertical assualt gives at least a vague doctrinal similarity.

I put Hyuga and Invincible together as they were both designed primarily as ASW carriers, primarily with helicopters (Hyuga completely).

Invincible was not with Dokdo, you may have been referring to Cavour which i wasn’t sure about placing as it is supposed to act as either a carrier or LPH.

I was under the impression that Ocean was an invincible with a slightly different superstructure and with the Internal Passageway’s widened and built to commercial standards

Ocean is a very different ship beyond the hull form, for starters she uses an entirely diesel propulsion set compared to the all gas turbine plant of the Invincibles.

Invincible may have been designed as an ASW ship but the class has been transformed into attack carriers and their current role has little resemblance to the Hyuga.

Dokdo has a well deck, Cavour does not, big difference. Not tomention the full up V/SYOL capabilities of Cavour versus the at best (and possibly non-existant) capabilities of the Dokdo.

And of course the U.S governments have never ever supported ‘undesireable regimes’ :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

cheers baz

I never said they did not, you are fabricating comments to argue against and you now owe me an apology.:mad:

If you had bothered to read all the posts properly you would have recognised that I was pointing out that the UK supports dogy regimes aswell as the US.

Yes, we can see that.

Have you ever read a car magazine comparison. Maybe they are irrelevant, after all some people own snowmobiles also? Read the first couple of paragraphs. You may be incapable of understanding the relevance of direct comparison but please don’t assume others cannot take them for what they are and keep a sense of perspective when reading them.

The difference with cars is that there inumerable different models purchased by an incredible number of people usually with very similar needs. A completely useless and foolish comparison with navies.

I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond to your arrogant drivel but I will take mild amusement in pointing out that you made some incorrect statements about the Invincible class. You state “The British ships have very little amphibious capability because they were never meant to have it” when in fact Invincible class was designed to accommodate 500 troops (some sources quote 907 troops). And the other British ship in the frame, HMS Hermes, was in fact a “commando carrier” during the Falklands but shifted role when it was decided that she was too precious too act as such and her landing craft (still carried by INS Viraat) and troops where transferred to other ships. -hence my comment in the text about assault carrier (LPH etc) and light fleet carrier requiring similar designs but implying diverging operational considerations. The specialism versus flexibility conundrum; no doubt you have a view but please don’t share it.

And your point is what, these are still roles and needs defined by the wider fleet structure itself a product of the unique environment in which it is moulded. You have just pointed out the absurdity of your own methodology.

As for my comment regarding the Cavour being a better “harrier carrier” than Wasp or USS America (based on what we know of the latter) that means exactly what it says. It is. You may be of the view that USMC doesn’t need a carrier what with the USN’s CTOL carriers but I gather many in the USMC aviator community disagree and USS America is seen by some as a USMC carrier for F-35Bs via the back-door. Either way if you are carrying jump-jets (Harriers of F-35Bs) why not add a ski jump so that they can carry more and go further??? And if you don’t need a well deck (USS America won’t have one apparently) why go taller-and-narrower (like a LPD) when you could go shorter-and-wider making more flight deck for both jump-jet and rotor ops????

Basically if you’re a jump-jet jock in the USMC (or any navy) then the Cavour is better than a LPD.

Comments that show your lack of understanding, contrary to what USMC fighter pilots might think LHA-6 is not an aircraft carrier for them, it is a vessel for vertical assault. So you have still created a conclusion that is completely useless and then responded with a post that suggests a problem with anger control.

Got to laff at that one, F104 project and america back handing half the politicians of europe to sell them an aircaft that could not fly in anything approaching bad weather:D

Pointless post, the reference was not to corruption but about relations with undesirable regimes.

Seems this thread is working pretty well: lots of interesting responses. Some of which are much more informative than stating -without any elaboration – that my question – whatever you take it to be – is somhow answered by Absalon and F125.

You are right, you have yet to elaborate your question, when you tell us what it is we will answer it but for now we are left guessing.

Do you want to propose an ASW DDH or a power projection DDH, if you want the latter then the Absalon/F125 is your answer.

Pick a navy and define a role and this will become much easier but at the moment is is remarkably unclear what it is that you are asking for.

I apologize for my ignorance and yield to your magnificence

Quite possibly one of the most sensible things that you have ever done.:rolleyes:

Your point it well taken…………That said, you are not saying we shouldn’t make comparisons???

Make them if you like, but be aware of their gaping limitations.

I should add that I admire the skill of the author but I see no point to his comparison exercise.