HAWX aceIt 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
HAWX aceIt’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.
HAWX aceMy first thought would be to get one miniature plastic model and multiply its dimension by scale. But I don’t know if it is available and by which company.
Sorry I cannot be of more help…
HAWX aceThere are several reasons. The ships are old & worn out. They need large crews, & had high maintenance requirements from the start, which have got even greater with age. They’d be very expensive to run.
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.
Also, all the allied navies which might want such a ship have something of their own to perform the role. Italy has Cavour, a better carrier than the ex-US LHDs, & plans to build new LHDs with much lower manning need & operating costs.
Spain has Juan Carlos I, a modern LHD which is so much cheaper to run than one of the old US ships that it’s no contest. Both also have relatively modern smaller LPDs, & an old light STOVL carrier each.
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?
Australia is buying modified Juan Carlos I LHDs. The UK is building real carriers to replace its old STOVL light carriers. France has a real carrier, & its own LHDs.
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…
One rapidly runs out of possible navies to pass them on to. Nobody wants them!
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. 😀
HAWX aceThe US won’t be willing to sell its powerplants if it threatens F-35 – especially since SAAB has done so well in the export market already.
Back in the seventies, the Sweds had secured a deal for IIRC 85 Viggens for India, but the the US banned the export of its engine, eventhough it was a civilian aviation engine model-the afterburner provided by VolvoAero. So the Indians opted for the Jaguar instead. So it’s true, the US does not have the best partner-trading history.
A few times after, I’ India considered Viggen, jointly with Mirage Fl and the SEPECAT Jaguar, to fill of the missions of fighter-bomber at long distance. But Saab had to withdraw its offer, because the American government refused to grant the licence of export of an engine derive of the JT8D, in spite of the fact that this engine etait primarily uses on civil aircrafts, including already in India.
Source: http://www.atfx.org/Saab_Viggen,EN,16,32,,.html
And another thing, I found this nice pic. It’s a concept as it says, I wonder if SAAB has given any consideration to the idea, or if it feasible at all.
HAWX aceYou’d want to be able to operate a carrier in as wide a range of conditions as possible. What if you’re under attack by long-range bombers, or surface vessels, far from land? A real carrier would be able to fly off its fighters for air defence or anti-shipping strike in much worse conditions than a Tarawa or Wasp.
For their role of amphibious assault, this is not a great deficiency. An amphibious assault necessarily implies being close to shore, not in open ocean, & would not go ahead in extreme weather, & therefore there would be no need for air support from STOVL fighters operating from the assault ships. The trade-off against increased hull capacity is worthwhile.
All these are perfectly logical and understandable, but not an answer to my question.
Why would navies of the size of say Spain or Italy need to roam the Oceans, which would require more seaworthy vessels? These navies already have “multi-role” small carrier, which pretty much resemple the Tarawas or the Wasps, albeit they are smaller. A pure dedicated aircraft carrier is clearly a luxury for anybody except the US and 3 or 4 other countries. So my question is, instead of scrapping them, would it be an at least interesting idea to pass them over for a symbolic price to an allied navy? I think they would be ideal for a variety of roles.
Bager1968 says they are too old and not for sale, not citing a source or something. Even so, we have the example of former HMA Hermes, which survives as INS Viraat, and MN Foch which survives as NAe Sao Paolo.
This way, they could perhaps add a motive for more F-35B sales in the future, since that would be the sole option for its air wing.
HAWX aceThose flat bottom LHA/LHD don’t really make good carriers. Not very stable in rougher seas.
Since this is purely theoretical, why is that; I mean, why would someone want to use them in rough, open seas?
HAWX aceThe USA took a long time to issue a denial because the story was considered too silly to need denying. The US Secretary of Defense laughed out loud when he was asked directly (by an Indian journalist), & as soon as he’d stopped laughing, denied it unequivocally. He stated that he had never heard such a thing even suggested.
I tried tracking the story back, & every report that had a source linked back, as you say, to one Indian story, which appeared to be based on imagination applied to an off-the-cuff remark by a relatively junior USN officer, stated at the time to be hypothetical, & merely to illustrate a theoretical scenario. Sort of “if we were ever to offer India a carrier, e.g. Kitty Hawk . . . “.
OK, I believe I got the picture…
Found these threads too: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=78771&highlight=Kitty+Hawk+india
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=74284&highlight=Kitty+Hawk+india
HAWX aceWell any attacvk post 9/11 could be considered “in wartime” thanks to George W.
Sure, but you don’t seriously refer to present time as wartime because of GW, do you?
Even if you do, reality will contradict you. In World War II, during for example the assault on Iwo Jima, the US lost some (correction) 6.800 marines, and nobody even blinked back in the CONUS. Today a single soldier dies in Afghanistan and all hell brakes loose for days due to the public and media outcry in his home country, US or allied. In fact, if innocents civilians are involved, then it’s double the outcry…
HAWX aceThe only way to defeat Qaeda and the likes is to make them look meaningless. That means zero media coverage and zero attention to their threats.. Even if they orchestrate an attack, don’t fvck with them, claim it as an accident.. This way they will slowly lose any levers on achieving their political goals, which in return means less influence, less fans, less recruits, less vendors, sinking popularity and limited financial support. The more this trend will continue, the more people will ask “Al-Qaeda, what is that, some new oriental meal?”
Agreed, except for the fact that in today’s internet world, zero media coverage is easier said than done…
It is very likely that a strategy like this will cost lives in the beginning but it’s not like that current strategies do not. Finally, you don’t call D-day in Normandy 1944 a failure just because there were many casualties, do you?
You sure don’t, but then again, D-Day did occur during wartime, right??
HAWX aceon the subject of european companies – the gripen is promoted by BAE aswell as SAAB and isn’t EADS taking the lead on the Typhoon campaign in India?
They are both winners whichever wins, if it wins. BAE sponsors the Gripen, true, since Saab lacks a network of international marketing acquaintances. In fact, Saab’s promotional team is made up of englishmen 😀
So BAE actually has two proposals for India, so that they may choose whichever they think more appropriate. The same goes for many other companies and subcontractor. MBDA wins whichever of the eurocanards wins, makes weapons for them all. Selex wins if EF or Gripen wins, makes radar for both. Thales wins too, makes IRST sensors for all 3. Even EADS will win if the Rafale is selected, since EADS owns a large portion (46.22%) of Dassault.
Amazing how Europeans do business, no?? :diablo: WTF? Even american GE wins if either the SH or the Gripen wins, they have the same engine :p
With some luck, even the israelis can win, they offer EW sets and missiles for the gripen 😀
EDIT, OFF TOPIC ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
IIRC hasn’t BAE stopped marketing the Gripen. I think now it is offered directly by SAAB.
Only on the surface. Saab marketing directors, most of them Englishmen, have more than once admitted that the cooperation and support of BAE remains invaluable.
Also MBDA has less to win if EF wins, The A2A weaponry in the EF can easily be non MBDA AIM 120/IRIS T. Same with the Gripen Indian Gripen will likely have AIM 120/Python 5.
🙂
You are right, but at the same time you are wrong: You should look at the broader picture.
Enough OT on my behalf. 🙂
HAWX aceI wonder if the older Tarawas or Wasps later on would be made available for sale as second hand small carriers for allied navies. Since the large nuclear Nimitz class is out of question. I believe the non-nuclear Kitty Hawk was offered for sale to India for free, provided they would refit it and buy new Super Hornets for it, but it would prove far too costly even so.
I think that at “only” 40-50 thousand tones and perhaps certified with F-35Bs, would be a nice proposal, instead of scrapping. Age might be an issue of course, but then again, INS Viraat and NAe Sao Paolo have lived to this day after half a century and still survive…
HAWX aceNot really breaking news, but still…
Pak, China agree to strengthen defense cooperation
Pakistan and China have agreed to strengthen the mutual cooperation in defense and military fields and increase cooperation among industries of defense production and institutions of the two countries.
Full story: http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=156865
HAWX aceA good example of how few morons can tie up hundred times worth of enemy forces. Writing few lines on the website results in safety precautions of enormous dimensions costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars worthlessly spent. This is the ultimate terrorist dream, why blow up ships if it works even without it? 😎
I saw this article and I recalled your comment. Imagine such a level of alert throughout the US navy’s assets all over the world just for a week or two:
Expert: Scrambling fighters to escort Portland airliner understandable, but expensive
“That was one expensive overhead bin incident,” said Michael Boyd, president of Boyd Group International aviation consulting firm in Colorado. Although the military did not have an immediate estimate for the cost, he said scrambling a jet would cost about $10,000 an hour each.
…..
“I would much rather err on the side of caution than not take it seriously and an event happens,” she said. “I would much rather inconvenience the 200-some-odd passengers on the aircraft for a short period of time than have our commanders write condolence letters to their families.”
Although the pilots who flew the jets were Oregon Air National Guard pilots, the federal government will pick up the cost, said Oregon Military Department Capt. Stephen Bomar.
The aviation expert, Boyd, had never before heard of a level-one security threat receiving an F-15 escort, but said the decision is understandable.
Full article: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/expert_scrambling_fighters_to.html
Relative thread: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=96900
Best regards
HAWX aceTwo interesting stories by Oregonlive:
First, the guy was not charged and walked free: No charges for Salem man whose behavior caused Hawaii-bound airliner to return to Portland
And most interesting, the pilots felt the escort was not necessary and nor worth the money cost on aviation fuel for the two F-15 fighters.
Expert: Scrambling fighters to escort Portland airliner understandable, but expensive
By Helen Jung, The Oregonian
January 07, 2010, 11:33PMThe decision to send two F-15 fighter jets to escort a Hawaii-bound plane with an unruly passenger back to Portland was an unusual move that likely cost tens of thousands of dollars, according to an aviation expert.
The military escort of Hawaiian Airlines Flight 39 surprised even the crew onboard, which had considered the threat as “Level 1,” or lowest-level risk, said Hawaiian Airlines spokesman Keoni Wagner.
“Based on that, we were surprised that this triggered the reaction of scrambling fighter jets,” he said. “We don’t know where that came from.”
The decision came from commanders with the Continental North American Aerospace Defense Command, which guards against air attacks in the continental United States. Their decision to scramble jets is a discretionary decision and “truly depends on the circumstances that are unfolding,” said Lt. Col. Susan Romano, public affairs director for Continental NORAD.
……………..
Read more: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/expert_scrambling_fighters_to.html
Best regards
Sign In
