• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Aircraft Carriers of the World

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Reaction score
705
Points
1,060
What countries [other than the US/Brits/French] are building or using aircraft carriers, and why? For example, I see in Janes NFNB this week that Italy has launched the second Cavour class carrier. Why do countires like Italy need carriers like that when, for example, Germany doesn't.

What aircraft are being carried, and in what numbers?

Will the proposed Australian LHD's be capable of carrying supporting the VTOL version of the JSF?

Why does Spain have a carrier for its marine amphib. forces, yet the NL do not?

 
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/index.html
http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

Try checking out these sites Whiskey.

As far as I know the following countries operate Aircraft Carriers:

US, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Thailand, India, Brazil, Russia(?)

Other countries operate helicopter capable vessels like the Dutch Rotterdam and the new Aussie ship(s).

The vessels range from the Mega Carriers of the US with air wings of 80 to 100 aircraft of all sorts to small vessels like those of the Spanish, Italians and Thais that launch half-a-dozen Harriers and about the same number of Blackhawks (11,000tonnes).

Brazil operates a 1963 vintage french carrier, India has a carrier in service and has bought a used Russian carrier and I think the Russians may be out of the carrier business.

Why?  Dominate the waters around their coastlines, also useful for expeditionary purposes - both humanitarian and combat.

The Dutch intend to operate as part of a coalition.  Their marine forces operate with the British Royal Marines.
There Minesweepers operate with the French and Belgians. Their Army operates with the Germans.

Spain presumably wants to maintain more independence of action.

 
What countries [other than the US/Brits/French] are building or using aircraft carriers, and why?

Japan is building a class of "through deck-cruiser", South Korea is building LHDs and is rumoured to be intrested in CVs (of sorts), Red China has been showing an intrest in carriers for over a decade, and the Dutch are looking at possably replacing their elder AOR (Zuidrcruis?) with an LHD. I think Kirkhill got the rest.

For example, I see in Janes NFNB this week that Italy has launched the second Cavour class carrier.

Cavour is the sole ship of that class, the Italians other carrier (if you wish to call it that), the Garibaldi, is close to twenty years old and half the size of the Cavour.

Why do countires like Italy need carriers like that when, for example, Germany doesn't.

It's all politics......a more ap- question, based on their economy and their "status" in the world, is why don't the Germans have a Carrier......

WRT Italy, they see themselves (and I agree) as a "world player", and are more then willing to pay the cost finically to do so. A navy is one of, if not the best tool to implement ones foreign policy with, and the extra capabilities afforded to a navy with an aircraft carrier are stark when compared to a navy without.

What aircraft are being carried, and in what numbers?

Do you mean Italy's carrier? If so, basically the same as that of Garibaldi: Harriers/EH-101/NH-90/Sea Kings/Twin Huey's/Mangustas and JSF when delivered (not on Garibaldi)

Will the proposed Australian LHD's be capable of carrying supporting the VTOL version of the JSF?

It's a rather muddy answer since they may not infact get built, it all depends on their election and if Howard gets booted........With that said, AFAIK the Australians are looking at the Spanish design (JSF capable) and a French design (I doubt to be JSF capable)........now RAAF purchasing the F-35B is another question.

Why does Spain have a carrier for its marine amphib. forces, yet the NL do not?

Their current carrier, Principe de Asturias, was infact designed to be a light carrier (based on a American design from the 70s) and has only minor (if any) phib capabilities. Mind you, they are currently building an LHD for their Marines, which can double as a light carrier when needed (same one the Aussies are looking at).


 
I think the Russians may be out of the carrier business

I just read somewhere a couple of weeks ago that the Kuznetsov went to sea with her air wing and was exercising with the MN.
 
Focussing in on Italy a bit further, it seems to me their true strategic interests are confined to the Med. I think it would be fair comment to say that Italy has a carrier force for the purposes of being a self supporting, dependable team player in the international community, although I accept that is not the only reason for the asset. I know the Garibaldi was off Somalia during at least one stage of the Italian deployment of troops on the ground there.  

As for Germany, Andrew Toppan shows Germany has the funding for 2 LPD ships, and I wouldn't be surprised if these vessels have some very impressive and unique capabilities. Global security is silent on this ship, and my copy of JFS is predates Toppans information. Is anybody in a position to verify the status of this project? Thx.

The only G-8 country without LPD/LPH/CVL/CV capaibility or aspirations is Canada. Granted, the G-8 is not a military security organization, but the linkage is found in the capacity to pay for global security. I was hoping that the JSS would be a reasonable platform for us to be in the club of responsible nations, however it appears the vessels will not have appropriate facilities for anything other than the most benign operating environment. That's if those ships even get built .... time will tell. At the present time, it seems we have remained at the dinner table without paying, but I suspect that Canada has worn out it's welcome.

Outside of the US, I think that Spain and Italy and perhaps Japan are developing fine naval fleets with respectable naval aviation assets, any one of which Canada is more than capable of financially supporting and therefore emulating. Each of thoses countries have wonderful state sponsored social programs such as health care, education etc., so I reject the notion that Canada cannot afford both a strong defence force built on a well equipped navy as well as social programs.   I also note that Canada has one of the most inefficient post secondary education systems in the world, and some Canadian universities are now graduating more foreign students than domestic, especially in professions like medicine and engineering.  

If a navy is good way to project national influence and image around the world, there is something to be said about a country that ignores the reality of it's place in the world by neglecting it's naval requirements without legitimate reason to do so ... i.e. being land locked or dirt poor, and we aren't either.

   
 
Back
Top