Ja Worsleyyou know mate, this reminds me of Boeings blended wing project, I wonder if the American company the these guys are talking about is Boeing, would be facinating on a multitude scale.
Ja WorsleySteve: mate what you say there is very interesting and I really do have to agree, but one little concern stopped the idea becoming a reality, the fact that she was built to a Standard Merchant Design and then fitted with military equipment, rather than built straight out to a military design (IIRC she was a modifide car carrier).
I have always felt that Ocean has a good tub, and that the RN has over looked her capabilities and they should actually buy a couple more of them.
Ja WorsleyHere you go mate, this is the last thing I have on it, form 2003.
Ja WorsleyWow interesting thing, I think I remember something but hang about, I’ll see what I have on file
Ja WorsleyNot to mention all the other planes and helos that they captured and are now selling off, IIRC there are about a dozen or so A-37’s here in Australia that came from the VPAF inventory, one flies regularly at Temora Aviation museum (she flies once a month and in her old South Veitnamese colours).
Ja WorsleyNice pics mate, you captured a rare angle of the hornet that makes it somehow appealing.
Ja WorsleyOK I am going to have to intervein here (since it is my thread 😛 )
Here is what I was trying to find out:
Old ships that have seen service in previous battles that are manned by current full time enlisted personel and are still listed in the Orbat of their country (not specifically the country that they were built in but the country that they served in). USS Constitution is therefore ruled out simply because the USN does not list her in their orbat, where as HMS Victory is listed in the RN orbat!!!
Now can we get on with it???
Ja WorsleySealordlawrence: Mate what malaysian ship??? Are you refering to the Thai one that I mentioned?
Steve: They bought EAV-8A’s not AV-8A’s, there is a difference, the Spainish built their matadores with a lot of home built stuff. As for the status symbol, well you only have to go down one deck to see the answer to that, look in the Royal quarters 😉 But yes the Helos would have been far more usful and a load more practicle, not to mention leaving more money to finish off the equipment fitout of the ship, she still needs extencive internal comms, ComSat, Tacan and airsearch radar and top cap it all off, she still needs a defencive armourment.
Ja Worsleythat’s right they did too as did China, so why wheren’t these mentioned? The person who wrote this article should have done a lot more research and/or clarrified what they classed as a carrier!
Ja WorsleyThe netherlands and Ireland are both thinking of LHD’s.
With the current cutbacks in the Dutch defence budget, I really don’t see them going ahead with such a plan, though it would be nice, especially if they keep up with their work on the UN front.
Ireland is an oddity (no offence), they have a really modern fleet and very capable as well, but why would they want a ship of this class? They claim that it’s for UN and Humanitarian roles but this would also mean that they’d have to buy more helos. Now I really can’t see this as it would mean an expansion in the Irish Armed forces. Most Irish I know are really passive and their only dispute is with the english across the water.
Another country that is expecting an LHD is Canada, but with thier fleet in serious trouble (Iraquois Class needing upgrade- as it is only two are getting it, Halifax class undergoing upgrade- only four of these, the troubles with the subs and finally the delays in finding a Seaking replacement-which they have finally done but has it been the right choice) is costing the CDF more and more each year, so where they intend to get the fund from is rather an intreguing question.
Ja WorsleyWell I know one country that doesn’t need their carrier, Thailand, during the Tsunami crisis she just sat there tied up alongside. The whole reason they bought her was for disaster relief so they claimed, we when a disaster came, she wasn’t there, so they should sell her off, there are a few countries that could use her and would be willing to pay a good price for her.
As for countries that need them, well that comes down to which countries are active in humanitarian roles around the world. Now this does tie in with countries that also have a good GDP and are running in surplus at the moment, so my list would reflect as such:
Australia; Two LHD’s with a probability of ops with F-35’s, (though the more I think about it, the more I agree with Dr Carlo Kopp’s idea of having one LHD and say three smaller LHT’s makes more sence.
Japan; Now this is a rather contraversial decission as Japans history with carriers is rather daunting, but I feel that over the years Japan has paid the price of her mistake. Besides she doesn’t have the will anymore for combat on a pre-emptive scale. But Japan is becoming a world force in humanitarian aid on a global scale. If there were a couple of Helo carriers in her inventory (As there will be soon), then this role will be better filled.
Singapore; Now this is a country that could use a carrier in the full sence, she has a legitimate concern with her aproaching sea lanes and the further out she can protect shipping incoming and out going, the safer many people may feel when using shipping. Currently all it would take is one rogue sub positioned in the right spot in her SLOC’s and they would starve. I believe that a couple of small CVL’s would actually go a long way with the RSN, capped off with a few Harrier’s and some ASW helos. This is one possible country where the RTN could sell their current carrier.
I’m sure there are a couple of other countries that I could mention but I can’t think of them off hand.
Argentina’s plans to reaquire another carrier, to me, resembles more of a spoilt brat action than one of logic. They want one because their neighboure has one. Argentina really needs to address it’s social and economic priorities before it looks at gaining a defence upperhand.
And why does Brazil have a carrier?, I mean I could understand the Minas Gerias, she had a compliment of ASW Trackers, but now the MdB has moved from ASW ops to Strike with their carrier, why? Where are they planing on going with it? And Sao Paulo economically doesn’t have much life left in her, so what are they building up for?
Also Englands purchase of just two carriers I think is going to prove one major thing, and that is that they need another carrier!
China’s carrier program is more a question of “When will she put to sea” as opposed to “When will they start building one”? Remember how Japan hid their Yamato class Battleships under such extreme security. I feel that China is doing something very similar.
Another country that should loose their carrier is Russia, sure she happens to be the pride of the fleet, but what fleet is she the pride of? Since the Death of the SU, Russia has really struggled to gain funds- she’s had to pay back more than she makes. But as a result of this the defence force has really suffered and the navy the worst of all, the once proud fleet that sailed the oceans of the world now is struggling to sail it’s lakes and rivers let alone anything further abroad. Selling the Kutsnezov would make economical sence because they could generate fund and inturn resotre a good deal of their once proud fleet.
Ja WorsleyWhere does it mention Béarn?
Ok sorry I misunderstood this section:
During the 20th century, Britain, the USA, Japan and, to a limited extent, France successfully designed and built aircraft carriers, equipped them with aircraft and used them in action.
And the reason I misunderstood it was because if you look at the grouping of the countries, all of those countries had built carriers pre WWII, thus my comment on Bearn. But 20th Century covers the 60’s as well which follows in the next line which is where the two steam powered carriers of the Foch class came in.
France didn’t only have these carriers: a glory class was transfered from the RN the the MN straight after the war as was USS Bellau Wood (becoming Bois Bellau which is it’s name translated into French).
What suprises me is the fact that the Author left out the Australian Carrier HMAS Albatross, sure she was a seaplane carrier, but in terms of aircraft carriers she was one. She served for nine years in the RAN and was transfered to the RN after the first arms limitation treaty and she was used as part payment for the two new light crusiers that the RAN bought. She served in most theaters of WWII and was there for the DDay landings, she was finally paid off and sold in the 50’s to a Greek transport company, she suffered a fire aboard but was restored and that’s the last I know of her. I have been searching for years now trying to find out what eventually became of her, so if there are any Greek people here that might have a clue, please let me know.
Ja WorsleySounds like a bit of research is going to have to be done
Ja WorsleyWell my first impression is what a load of cobblars, but then again one has to think of possible reasons why the Russians took so long in allowing foreginers to help in a rescue. remember it took 8 days to allow them to say yes even when Norway and Britain were there in 12 hours.
Hmmmm interesting.
Ja WorsleyI have to agree with the majority, this article really goes nowhere, it talks about the past and where some countries failed (oh and the French carrier Bearn of Pre WWII didn’t really go anywhere but was used as an aircraft transport rather than as a carrier).
so I guess one has to ask, what was the point of this article?
Sign In
