# New Italian Carrier



## tomahawk6 (24 Dec 2007)

The Cavour is a beautiful looking ship just added to the Italian Navy.


----------



## Mike Baker (24 Dec 2007)

Quite a beautiful ship indeed.


----------



## CougarKing (24 Dec 2007)

I think she kinda looks like the former HMS _Hermes_ which is now in Indian Navy service as the INS _Viraat_ - ski jump and all. The _Cavour_ is also named after a World War II era Italian battleship that was sunk by British Swordfish torpedo bombers in the famous Taranto air attack in 1940.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Dec 2007)

Sigh, guess I better put one on next year's christmas list....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Dec 2007)

Apparently she is built to mercantile standards.....dangerous thing with all that aviation fuel onboard. They can have her if that is the case.


----------



## matthew_bourque (22 Jan 2008)

Yeah, that sure is a pretty awesome looking rig.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Jan 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> I think she kinda looks like the former HMS _Hermes_ which is now in Indian Navy service as the INS _Viraat_ - ski jump and all.



You will note that this is nothing new for the Italian Navy. Look up the Garibaldi just for shits and giggles.


----------



## NCRCrow (23 Jan 2008)

nice ship.......Canada is only 25 years behind a Mediterranean navy


----------



## CougarKing (23 Jan 2008)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> nice ship.......Canada is only 25 years behind a Mediterranean navy



It's ironic that about over 60 years since the British Royal Navy and the Italian Navy fought for supremacy in the Mediterranean in World War II, that the Italians have carriers once again; they used to have one called the _Aquila_ built during WW2 but which never saw service before Italy capitulated in 1943. Although the Italians have two carriers now, it is doubtful they'd want to reassert themselves as a Mediterranean naval power again or achieve Mussolini's futile WW2 dream of _Mare Nostrum_, especially with Rome's participation in NATO, with the USN 6th Fleet in the Med, and since the French and Spanish have carriers of their own. Or should WW2-era RN Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham be turning in his grave?

note to CDNAviator: I was well aware of the _Giuseppe Garibaldi_'s existence even before this thread was posted.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Jan 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> that the Italians have a carrier once again;



As i said, they have had a CV for some time now.


----------



## Neill McKay (23 Jan 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Apparently she is built to mercantile standards.....



Apart from watertight separation of spaces (my assumption), what else does this imply?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jan 2008)

Fewer watertight bulkheads, less hose stations, less capability to withstand battle damage, less likelihood of escape hatches in all spaces, do I need to go on?


----------



## STONEY (2 Feb 2008)

FYI   The Number of watertight bulkheads and hose stations has nothing to do with with a ship being built to mercantile standards as the designer of either ship can put into the design as many as he wants he just can't put in less. Mercantile ships have to comply with the SOLAS convention(safety of life at sea) while military ships do not and hence don't have as much lifesaving equipment.  IE : When HMCS Kootenay (built to warship standards) suffered an explosion with loss of life , the resulting board of enquiry determined that the vessel did not have near enough firefighting equipment onboard it required and that more watertight  bulkheads should be kept closed while vessel was at sea.

Cheersl


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Feb 2008)

You board any merchant ship out there and you see fewer hose stations, fewer water tight bulkheads, fewer first aid stations, fewer damage control and fewer life rafts. 

look how long ago the Kootenay was. The Canadian Navy as well as other navies throughout the world learned a lot of painful lessons from that tragedy.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (5 Feb 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> It's ironic that about over 60 years since the British Royal Navy and the Italian Navy fought for supremacy in the Mediterranean in World War II, that the Italians have carriers once again; they used to have one called the _Aquila_ built during WW2 but which never saw service before Italy capitulated in 1943. Although the Italians have two carriers now, it is doubtful they'd want to reassert themselves as a Mediterranean naval power again or achieve Mussolini's futile WW2 dream of _Mare Nostrum_, especially with Rome's participation in NATO, with the USN 6th Fleet in the Med, and since the French and Spanish have carriers of their own. Or should WW2-era RN Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham be turning in his grave?



Tangent Alarm.

Not sure if it is ironic and I don't know if Cunningham would be too concerned.  Friends and enemies come and go.  After all, Cunningham interned the French squadrons at Alexandria in 1940 so I think that he was used to that sort of thing.  That being said, he did report in 1943 that "the Italian battle fleet now lies at anchor under the guns of the guns of the fortress of Malta" or something like that so he did have an aggressive streak.  He didn't approve, however, of the shelling of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir.  Strikes me as a decent level-headed man possessed of great will but also nuance.  Didn't he write "It takes three years to build a ship and three centuries to build a tradition."  

The German Navy has had submarines for some time, and they were a much greater menace that the Italian fleet.  I'll wake up when the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force changes it's name to the Imperial Japanese Navy and we get the Shokaku and Zuikako in the Persian Gulf.  Even then, we could probably use the help...


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Apr 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You board any merchant ship out there and you see fewer hose stations, fewer water tight bulkheads, fewer first aid stations, fewer damage control and fewer life rafts.
> 
> look how long ago the Kootenay was. The Canadian Navy as well as other navies throughout the world learned a lot of painful lessons from that tragedy.



I did have a conversation on this subject and the USN came up.  I was told that the "Official party line" and the current train of thought is that it is over engineering to build to mil spec.  They have come to the conclusion that civ spec is adequate and suitable.  ( I fear that overall there is more of a bean counter mentality behind the push for more bang for the buck decisions, but of course I am a suspicious bastard at the best of times)  It was also mentioned in the conversation that they do have more recent experience in this regard. ie USS Cole, USS Stark etc. and that was what led to this paradigm shift for them.  Sounds like waffle to me, but I for one like the thought of my home and mode of transportation to be over engineered should "shit" happen.


----------



## Neill McKay (8 Apr 2008)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I did have a conversation on this subject and the USN came up.  I was told that the "Official party line" and the current train of thought is that it is over engineering to build to mil spec.  They have come to the conclusion that civ spec is adequate and suitable.  ( I fear that overall there is more of a bean counter mentality behind the push for more bang for the buck decisions, but of course I am a suspicious ******* at the best of times)  It was also mentioned in the conversation that they do have more recent experience in this regard. ie USS Cole, USS Stark etc. and that was what led to this paradigm shift for them.  Sounds like waffle to me, but I for one like the thought of my home and mode of transportation to be over engineered should "crap" happen.



I read recently that Lloyd's now has a set of rules for naval vessels (which have traditionally not been classed by Lloyd's).  It would be interesting to know what the differences are.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Apr 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I read recently that Lloyd's now has a set of rules for naval vessels (which have traditionally not been classed by Lloyd's).  It would be interesting to know what the differences are.



This is not my forte as I am in the engineering side of the house.  But I was of the understanding that Lloyd's was concerned about insurance issues with vessels.  We are not insured in that sense of the word and I cannot imagine any other Naval vessel anywhere that would be.  So how and why should Lloyd's be sticking their oars in the water?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Apr 2008)

Yeah I can see it now....sorry you can't go on RIMPAC as your insurance has expired (under either a NDP or Liberal regime of course)....


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Apr 2008)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> This is not my forte as I am in the engineering side of the house.  But I was of the understanding that Lloyd's was concerned about insurance issues with vessels.  We are not insured in that sense of the word and I cannot imagine any other Naval vessel anywhere that would be.  So how and why should Lloyd's be sticking their oars in the water?



Lloyd's of London is in the insurance market.  Lloyd's Register is a classification society.  Both owe their name to Edward Lloyd's 17th century London coffee house.  But each have different functions and (other than originating in the same coffee house and having something to do with ships) have never been connected.   In 1760, the Register Society was formed by the coffee house customers and it printed the first Register of Ships in 1764 to give underwriters and merchants an idea of the condition of the vessels they insured and chartered.   In 1834, the organisation was reconstituted as Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping and the first classification rules were published.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Apr 2008)

Ok, I have gone to their site and joined the club so I could read up.  It does indeed seem that they are also pushing the civ spec requirements.  Their role seems to be of the sage advise kind.


----------



## geo (8 Apr 2008)

> The WWII peace treaty banned Italy from having an aircraft carrier, and therefore at the time of her launch she did not receive her Harriers and classed as Incrociatore portaeromobili (Italian for Aircraft carrying cruiser). Until 1988 only Italian helicopters landed on her deck, as well as RAF Harriers during NATO joint maneuvers. The ban was eventually lifted and in 1989 she obtained her own Harriers.



Aircraft carrying cruiser....... Cute!  Silly but cute   ???


----------



## FoverF (8 Apr 2008)

That's what the Russians have called a lot of their larger aviation vessels.


----------



## -dikweed- (8 Apr 2008)

I've never really liked the small VSTOL carrier concept that the Euros seem so enamored with.  They simply don't have the sortie capacity to make operating a carrier worthwhile.  Furthermore, they don't have significant AAW escort capability.  Spain may get a total of 6 F-100, and that would give them adequate coverage I suppose for their LHA,  Asturias and her future replacement.  Italy has weak capability to escort her two carriers, only two horizons planned im certain?

Hell, even France plans only four AAW escorts, and the MN is going to operate two large, capable CTOL Carriers!

Can someone please educate me on why European countries consider as few as four AAW warships significant for their needs compared to Anglo-American escort doctrine?


----------



## geo (9 Apr 2008)

Anglo American doctrine differs from the Europeans..... 
Probably because most of those figure that they are close enough to land that they can rely on "land based assets"
The Brits & Americans have a global view for the projection of power and thus need something that is a robust.

WRT to France.... you have to start by trying to understand them... still working on that >


----------



## larry Strong (9 Apr 2008)

Philltaj said:
			
		

> I've never really liked the small VSTOL carrier concept that the Euros seem so enamored with.  They simply don't have the sortie capacity to make operating a carrier worthwhile.  Furthermore, they don't have significant AAW escort capability.  Spain may get a total of 6 *F-100*, and that would give them adequate coverage I suppose for their LHA,  Asturias and her future replacement.  Italy has weak capability to escort her two carriers, only two horizons planned im certain?
> 
> Hell, even France plans only four AAW escorts, and the MN is going to operate two large, capable CTOL Carriers!
> 
> Can someone please educate me on why European countries consider as few as four AAW warships significant for their needs compared to Anglo-American escort doctrine?



There are countries still using the F-100?

Ahh found F100 frigates Dohh sucks to be a landlubber....


----------



## Neill McKay (9 Apr 2008)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ok, I have gone to their site and joined the club so I could read up.  It does indeed seem that they are also pushing the civ spec requirements.  Their role seems to be of the sage advise kind.



The function of a classification society (Lloyd's Register is one of several) is to establish rules for the construction of vessels and then certify vessels as conforming to them.  When a vessel is being built under the supervision of a classification society the owner has a level of assurance that the vessel will conform to a certain standard of safety.  Throughout the life of a vessel the classification society will conduct a vessel survey every so-many years to ensure that it is still in conformance to the rules.  If it is, the classification society continues to "class" the vessel (or, the vessel can be said to be "in class").


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 May 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Anglo American doctrine differs from the Europeans.....
> Probably because most of those figure that they are close enough to land that they can rely on "land based assets"
> The Brits & Americans have a global view for the projection of power and thus need something that is a robust.
> 
> WRT to France.... you have to start by trying to understand them... still working on that >



I would suspect that history also has a lot to do with it. During WW2 aircraft carriers played a very small role in the European theatre. The only carriers involved were those by the Royal Navy and if I remember correctly they lost one or two during the conflict in Europe. The only USN carriers involved in the European theatre were those used for convoy escorts towards the end of the war. 

The USN experience in the Pacific theatre was a different story. There carriers played a very significant role. During the conflict the USN found out that their carriers were very vulnerable to air attack, hence their present day emphasis on air defence for their carriers.


----------



## geo (19 May 2008)

carriers are mobile airfields.
If you can benefit from land based aircraft in your persuit of air domination, then the carriers are superfluous.

European countires that have (had) farflung empires are the ones who could benefit from the carriers as they vie to project power wherever they go.

In the pacific, there weren't any airfields for the americans to depend on... so they had to bring their own.


----------



## FoverF (20 May 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> carriers are mobile airfields.
> If you can benefit from land based aircraft in your persuit of air domination, then the carriers are superfluous.



Modern carriers can be far more than just mobile airfields. They are amphibious assault ships, command and control centres, strategic sea-lift vessels, logistics depots, mobile hospitals, sensor platforms, and sometimes even armed surface combatants in their own right. 

Not to mention they are intimidating, and have a huge LCF, which becomes important because many military operations are undertaken mainly for public consumption (both foreign and domestic) anyways.

You can have all the air superiority you want, and still find yourself with a pressing need for one or more of the capabilities a flat-top can bring to the table. (witness the USAF who could dominate the Gulf with both arms tied behind it's back, but the USN still brings both super- and assault-carriers to the party every time).

Otherwise I agree that much of the doctrine in this field is still seems to be based on WWII experience, but since I think that many of those lessons still probably apply, I don't see a problem with that.


----------



## geo (20 May 2008)

Fover,
My point was that, for european countries without far flung colonies & "interests", the "need" for carriers is just not as great.  They can do most of their projecting from their own airfields.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2008)

I believe that one of the drivers in Lloyds getting into classifying vessels for military use has probably been their Scandinavian competitors Det Norske Veritas (DNV) classifying paramilitary craft for Coast Guard work (KV Svalbard comes to mind and perhaps that should be Coast Guard craft for paramilitary work) as well as the vessels of the Royal Fleet Auxilliary.  Fearless and Intrepid were purely RN vessels like the Albions that replaced them.  However the Bay Class LSDs will be closely following the LPDs and they are officially civilian vessels AFAIK.

As far as survivability is concerned ... how about being on a large which cruise liner in narrow waters with Argentinian pilots hoping that their armourers got the fuse settings right on their bombs?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (21 May 2008)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I would suspect that history also has a lot to do with it. During WW2 aircraft carriers played a very small role in the European theatre. The only carriers involved were those by the Royal Navy and if I remember correctly they lost one or two during the conflict in Europe. The only USN carriers involved in the European theatre were those used for convoy escorts towards the end of the war.
> 
> The USN experience in the Pacific theatre was a different story. There carriers played a very significant role. During the conflict the USN found out that their carriers were very vulnerable to air attack, hence their present day emphasis on air defence for their carriers.



Just to go down a historical tangent, I would argue that the RN carriers played a big role in neutralizing the Italian fleet, although I certainly agree that the scale of use compared to the Pacific was much smaller.  The Taranto raid sank or damaged several Italian capital ships, while the British night surface victory at Cape Matapan was set up by an airstrike by naval aircraft.  British carriers were rather modest affairs and their aircraft somewhat obsolete, but in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.  The RN certainly lost several carriers to a variety of causes (Courageous, Ark Royal and Eagle to submarines and Glorious to surface ships plus some escort carriers) and several others were crippled by air attacks in the Med but I would argue that they were a major advantage for the RN over her enemies (a Swordfish crippled the Bismark which would have probably escaped otherwise).  Italian and German airforce-navy coordination was generally very poor.

Cheers


----------



## RCD (2 Oct 2008)

At least they have one!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Oct 2008)

RECON-MAN said:
			
		

> At least they have one!



This discussion has been addressed time and time again.....now what good would it be for our Navy to have a carrier? A good percentage of our sailors would have to man it which would effect our ability to man our other ships. Every major deployment that our navy has been on has seen ships go to other ships to beg, borrow and steal personnel where they can. Only thing that accomplishes is crew burnout and resentment.

nice to have but lets get the basics for our navy taken care of and fixed first please!


----------



## wildman0101 (2 Oct 2008)

Nice Pic... Imagine flammin of that beastie in a rock-n-roll jet...
May i borrow the keys sometime and cruise the North 
Atlantic like my Dad... Please Please
                            Best Regards,,
                                          Scoty B


----------

