Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Results 1 to 30 of 49

Thread: what countries actually need and dont need carriers?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    285

    what countries actually need and dont need carriers?

    Current and near future carrier operators including amphibious assault ships:
    China, India, Italy, Spain, Australia, UK, France, Russia, US, Thailand, Korea, Japan.

    Countries that don't need carriers
    Thailand. They have little use of theirs and the roles assigned to it could be done better by other units.

    Korea. Nothing but a show of force and arrogance to its neighbors. nice design, but little use in Korea's strategic objectives.

    India. Its enemy is right next door and most of its foreign interests are next to it too.

    Spain. Why do they even need an amphibious assault ship. They rarely participate in wars with the US.

    Countries that need carriers:
    China. China is the next super power. it has lots of business and strategic interests abroad and it needs to defend them.

    Indonesia. An island nation like this needs some kind of carrier and a better navy

    Canada. New potential for war over the Arctic Sea, Canada needs something better to project its force.

    South Africa.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    135
    Most of your post is rubbish but I'll just comment on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigershark View Post
    Spain. Why do they even need an amphibious assault ship. They rarely participate in wars with the US.
    A well designed Amphib is a very useful ship to have.
    They usually have fully equipped hospital facilities, nice big flight decks for helicopters and extensive comms and C&C equipment that makes them good at disaster relief.
    You don't want to be dependent on another country or civilian company for the transport of your heavy military equipment, ask the Canadians about that (hint google GTS Katie).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Toronto ON, Canada
    Posts
    580
    Even though Canada has had some poor results buying second hand naval kit (Upholder SSK's for example), I wonder if we could buy the Thai Carrier?
    "It was a magnificent display of trained and disciplined valour, and its assault only failed of success because dead men can advance no further."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Broadstairs, kent
    Posts
    377
    It is an issue i have thought about, with this new found desire for everyone to have a carrier, but personally i can't really see the need for many nations to have them.

    I don't think the RN needs 2, sure as the French will find, its annoying when your only one is in dock, but i think a more cost effective way to do it would be one carrier and one JSF capable ocean type amphib. Ithink thats where the line should be drawn for most countries a multi use ship, that can be used for stovl fast jets, but much better at carrying military and disaster relief stores for helo/lc distrubution. I think thats what most of those nations have already.

    Not sure about indonesia/S-africa, do they operate far from home?

    As far as china wanting to use power projection as a sign of its power, i think everyone knows china is a super power, and the reason is economics, not military, its currently embarking on its first long range naval deployment and i think the more china moves this route, the weaker it will look, until it spends a massive amount and i can't really see it using naval airpower abroad rather than sales pitch/making new friends(cuba/libya)

    Not massively knowledgable as far as navies are concerned, but thats my thoughts!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    472
    RN certainly does need 2, the whole point of Naval procurement should be to have at least half of your force available at any one time (1 task group) with the other hlf available to take over during an ongoing situation (or in a world level emergency be quickly put to sea), that was why we picked up ocean in the first place, increasing from 3 flat tops to essentially 4 allowed 1 aircraft carrier and one designated commando (read helicopter) carrier to be at sea at all times, just because Labour decided to strip the RN of invincible doesn't mean we should continue taking retrograde steps in hull numbers and capabilities

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    155
    Personally, I don't see the need for the US to have 11 carriers. I've been against such a huge navy for a while and can't see the need for more than 8 or 9 carriers--which in comparisson to other navies, still seems like complete overkill.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Tampa, Florida USA
    Posts
    11,705

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by bgnewf View Post
    Even though Canada has had some poor results buying second hand naval kit (Upholder SSK's for example), I wonder if we could buy the Thai Carrier?


    Interesting idea.................but is it large enough to support a small number of F-35B's?
    F-35 Lightning II

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigershark View Post
    Current and near future carrier operators including amphibious assault ships:
    China, India, Italy, Spain, Australia, UK, France, Russia, US, Thailand, Korea, Japan.
    Flattop type operators: current (near future)

    CTOL carrier operators: USA, France, Brazil.
    STOBAR carrier operators: Russia (China, India)
    STOVL carrier operators: UK, Spain, Italy, India, Thailand
    LHA/LHD/LPH operators: USA, UK, France, South Korea, Japan (Spain, Australia)

    Countries that don't need carriers: all except the above and possibly another handfull.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigershark View Post
    Current and near future carrier operators including amphibious assault ships:
    China, India, Italy, Spain, Australia, UK, France, Russia, US, Thailand, Korea, Japan.

    Countries that don't need carriers
    Thailand. They have little use of theirs and the roles assigned to it could be done better by other units.

    Korea. Nothing but a show of force and arrogance to its neighbors. nice design, but little use in Korea's strategic objectives.

    India. Its enemy is right next door and most of its foreign interests are next to it too.

    Spain. Why do they even need an amphibious assault ship. They rarely participate in wars with the US.

    Countries that need carriers:
    China. China is the next super power. it has lots of business and strategic interests abroad and it needs to defend them.

    Indonesia. An island nation like this needs some kind of carrier and a better navy

    Canada. New potential for war over the Arctic Sea, Canada needs something better to project its force.

    South Africa.
    India aims to be dominant power in Indian ocean or is already one. So having Blue water Navy, Carriers, Nuclear submarines is must for that.

    I would agree its the British Admirals who influenced Indian leaders a lot during post-ww2 that Carriers are a must for defending such a large coast line. Since indias independence, almost every force structure proposal comprised of 2 Carriers, 2 - 3 Cruisers, 5 to 10 Destroyers, many more frigates, corvettes and missile boats. Nuclear Submarines were added later as a part of strategic nuclear detterent. maintaining atleast a force 20 diesel electric submarines is also envisaged.
    Last edited by ajay_ijn; 8th January 2009 at 13:20.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    9
    Umm...

    Spanish carrier is central to our Naval Doctrine (I'm from Spain):

    - The Canary Islands are far beyond the Peninsula and just in front of the Moroccan occupied Sahara (a former Spanish colony)
    - There are Spanish forces deployed worldwide (and perhaps needed of a fast and close support, as "Príncipe de Asturias" made twice in the Balcans during the 90's, or perhaps UNIFIL at Lebanon could ask some day)
    - Spain is strongly dependant on her sea-lanes, both for import and export, perhaps as only the UK is in Europe
    - Spain is seen as a close ally by many Latin-American countries, who could ask for our support in case of emergency (natural disaster or military conflict) Apart of our commitments as a NATO member

    The new spanish ship, christened "Juan Carlos I", (28700 tn) is an amphibious ship with only a secondary aircraft carrier capability, i.e. to fill the gap during "Príncipe de Asturias" next refit (to last 2 years!)

    The Spanish navy ("Armada") would like to replace "Príncipe de Asturias" with a brand new Carrier at about 2020, and perhaps build before a second LPH as "Juan Carlos I"

    Therefore, our Admirals do not think as you do...neither do I

    BTW: First Spanish carrier "Dédalo" operated in the 1920's, with very similar objectives in mind. In 1967 Spanish Navy purchased the US Carrier "Cabot" (christened "Dédalo") to use it as a helicopter carrier, both for amphibious and assault tasks. With the arrival of the Harriers by 1977 it was once again used as an aircraft carrier, succesful enough to boost the construction of "Príncipe de Asturias" It's a long industrial and military experience to let it fall...
    Last edited by chiti; 8th January 2009 at 21:25.
    Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,406
    South Africa have in fact drafted a preliminary requirement for an air-capable ship, but not for operating fixed wing aircraft. I think that would be too expensive on its current very low percentage defence spending.

    They are looking at a vessel that would support out of area operations as The US and EU have asked them to take up a role more commeasurate with their economic muscle in Africa. The ship will carry and land troops and have a deck and facilities to operate troop helicopters and combat helicopters such as the Rooivalk.

    A number of European (Spanish, German, French) companies have expressed interest, but no fixed wing carrier is in current or long term plans, and certainly not with the current defence budget.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by wilhelm View Post
    South Africa have in fact drafted a preliminary requirement for an air-capable ship, but not for operating fixed wing aircraft. I think that would be too expensive on its current very low percentage defence spending.

    They are looking at a vessel that would support out of area operations as The US and EU have asked them to take up a role more commeasurate with their economic muscle in Africa. The ship will carry and land troops and have a deck and facilities to operate troop helicopters and combat helicopters such as the Rooivalk.

    A number of European (Spanish, German, French) companies have expressed interest, but no fixed wing carrier is in current or long term plans, and certainly not with the current defence budget.
    I'd heard the South Africans were looking at buying a French Mistral class vessel, for use as an amphibious transport with troop carrying helos as their contribution to an African Rapid Reaction Force in UN type operations. With a Navy of only four frigates, this would be a considerable jump in capability for them, but still do-able. Not holding my breath though...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ravenholm
    Posts
    2,793
    They have everything they need to be a Super Power, South Africa. If it wasn't for the mis-management, corruption and racial hatred they could have been a U.S.A of Africa.

    There is still time though. They have abundant natural resources and a decent economy.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell View Post
    I'd heard the South Africans were looking at buying a French Mistral class vessel, for use as an amphibious transport with troop carrying helos as their contribution to an African Rapid Reaction Force in UN type operations. With a Navy of only four frigates, this would be a considerable jump in capability for them, but still do-able. Not holding my breath though...
    It's one candidate. DCNS has also offered the cut-down BPC 140 & 160 versions, depending on the final requirement. IIRC Navantia is pushing a version of the BPE, but that looks over the top for the requirement. TKMS has proposed the MHD 150.

    http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=108283
    http://www.tk-marinesystems.de/bilde.../MHD_gross.jpg

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES