New Italian Carrier

[jollyjacktar]

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]

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]

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

 

[-dikweed-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

At least they have one!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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]

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