Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Kurt
Junior Member
Re: Aircraft Carriers
Even Germany is currently planning some kinds of carriers, two joint support ships, probably Karel-Doorman style and the Mehrzweckeinsatzträger that has been appearing in navy discussions for decades under varying names. It's most likely a helicopter carrier with some fixed wing capability, not unlike the Canberra-class.
Aircraft carriers are a necessity if you want to defend more than your littoral in order to ensure your SLOC protection. Furthermore, these carriers are a nice tool for global interventions (in war and peace) that do have their own benefits by acquired status and ability to enforce one's will.
Personally, I'd opt for the US allies to develop sea control and amphibious warfare carriers in order to free the supercarriers for other tasks worldwide. NATO could also try to get common supercarriers, like their AWACS and thus enable all small nations to contribute together with much enhanced efficiency by US-leadership. Have for each US carrier a number of allied nations partake among the crew and have each partaking nation develop a specific system component (OK ,the French screwed Ford's toilets, but the public shame was enough punishment).
As far as nukes go, there has been a long discussion in Germany on nuclear armament with several positions. It's currently fashionable to totally opt out anything nuclear and while I'm not a supporter of nuclear armament, a credible second strike doctrine with theoretical nuclear capability is part of the non-proliferation treaty. Japan, Germany, South Africa, Brazil and so on do fulfill the criteria of being theoretically nuclear capable and that should be enough nuclear defense. If someone choses to have functional nukes around, he should minimise their numbers, because as Mao pointed out, these are most useless weapons with too many global repercussions.
Even Germany is currently planning some kinds of carriers, two joint support ships, probably Karel-Doorman style and the Mehrzweckeinsatzträger that has been appearing in navy discussions for decades under varying names. It's most likely a helicopter carrier with some fixed wing capability, not unlike the Canberra-class.
Aircraft carriers are a necessity if you want to defend more than your littoral in order to ensure your SLOC protection. Furthermore, these carriers are a nice tool for global interventions (in war and peace) that do have their own benefits by acquired status and ability to enforce one's will.
Personally, I'd opt for the US allies to develop sea control and amphibious warfare carriers in order to free the supercarriers for other tasks worldwide. NATO could also try to get common supercarriers, like their AWACS and thus enable all small nations to contribute together with much enhanced efficiency by US-leadership. Have for each US carrier a number of allied nations partake among the crew and have each partaking nation develop a specific system component (OK ,the French screwed Ford's toilets, but the public shame was enough punishment).
As far as nukes go, there has been a long discussion in Germany on nuclear armament with several positions. It's currently fashionable to totally opt out anything nuclear and while I'm not a supporter of nuclear armament, a credible second strike doctrine with theoretical nuclear capability is part of the non-proliferation treaty. Japan, Germany, South Africa, Brazil and so on do fulfill the criteria of being theoretically nuclear capable and that should be enough nuclear defense. If someone choses to have functional nukes around, he should minimise their numbers, because as Mao pointed out, these are most useless weapons with too many global repercussions.
Last edited:
Re: Aircraft Carriers
Aren't those JointSupportShip designs already gone again? For all I know they didn't show up in the latest defense reviews any more. And that "multi-purpose-deployment-carrier" is also more an idea then an actual plan I think. In an overal defense concept they sure make sense (having a small off-shore base and a limited troop transport & light aviation capability) , and that's most likely were these ideas came from. But realisticly, I don't see a chance for those things to materialize for several years, or probably this decade.
A NATO CV would be a nice way to get some decent combat capacity rather efficiently. But right know there's probably way too much unanswered questions with integration issues and it's rather packed with political trip wires.
Some kind of a medium sized LHA with the capacity to carry a few hundred troops or carry vert lift strike & unmaned fixed wing ISTAR assets seems more realistic in the short term and would still be usefull.
Aren't those JointSupportShip designs already gone again? For all I know they didn't show up in the latest defense reviews any more. And that "multi-purpose-deployment-carrier" is also more an idea then an actual plan I think. In an overal defense concept they sure make sense (having a small off-shore base and a limited troop transport & light aviation capability) , and that's most likely were these ideas came from. But realisticly, I don't see a chance for those things to materialize for several years, or probably this decade.
A NATO CV would be a nice way to get some decent combat capacity rather efficiently. But right know there's probably way too much unanswered questions with integration issues and it's rather packed with political trip wires.
Some kind of a medium sized LHA with the capacity to carry a few hundred troops or carry vert lift strike & unmaned fixed wing ISTAR assets seems more realistic in the short term and would still be usefull.
Re: Aircraft Carriers
I think the UK would be economically and militarily and politically stronger if it abandoned its nuclear weapons.
I remember reading long ago that ocean waves never got higher than about 12 meters ( 40' for those still using the units of the Roman empire -
in the first apache video someone gave a distance in meters! ) and sailors who said they had seen higher ones were just exaggerating. Nowadays we can measure waves and two waves, one to the west of Ireland in 2009, the other near an oil platform in the North Sea were measured at a little less than 30 meters.
Karel Doorman doesn't look suitable for the use of fixed wing aircraft. The ship is intended to transport supplies for a Dutch air force detachment, the the Dutch air force has nearly run out of money.
It is not only "the UK and any free country" that might meet adversaries. Think of the destruction of Libya, think of what is now happening in Syria ( btw why is the US politically supporting Saudi sponsored terrorists in that country after its own experience with the like in 2001? ). Greece lives in a dangerous neighborhood. Would we like to see that country invest in nuclear weapons?
I think the UK would be economically and militarily and politically stronger if it abandoned its nuclear weapons.
I remember reading long ago that ocean waves never got higher than about 12 meters ( 40' for those still using the units of the Roman empire -
in the first apache video someone gave a distance in meters! ) and sailors who said they had seen higher ones were just exaggerating. Nowadays we can measure waves and two waves, one to the west of Ireland in 2009, the other near an oil platform in the North Sea were measured at a little less than 30 meters.
Karel Doorman doesn't look suitable for the use of fixed wing aircraft. The ship is intended to transport supplies for a Dutch air force detachment, the the Dutch air force has nearly run out of money.
Last edited:
Kurt
Junior Member
Re: Aircraft Carriers
The Karel Doorman is at least in theory capable of deploying troops, not fixed wing aircrafts. It's the same joint support ship idea Canada toyed with. The current German Einsatzgruppenversorger number 3, way too much for our coastal navy, but do have some capability to help evacuating our citizens worldwide because in prior cases we had to ask the mighty Dutch navy for help.
The problem with the German budget is that we try to get debt-free and thus reduce expenditure while raising taxes is deeply unpopular. Military expenditure is seen as a luxury in this context because neither the Poles nor the French threaten us. I'm very much in favour of doing some small transnational cooperations for specific objectives. The three Einsatzgruppenversorger are a joint project with Denmark and can be leased by other European nations. It would be a good idea to have the Baltic states, Poland and their defense industry partner Czechia, Denmark and Germany who all already have one naval command for defending the Baltic Sea join together and have some LPD capability they can deploy in their salty fresh water lake and use to save their citizens globally or help during disasters in order to create good vibes. A Canberra-class would be just fine, but after our commite worked on the LPD, it turned into this Einsatzgruppenversorger that can support more than one utility helicopter. As mentioned above, we Germans are masters at botched carrier attempts.
Btw. who invested into the JSF and doesn't sink money into a deep hole that was suddenly too much for the Dutch leading to a JSF controversy. Perhaps someone can explain me why we don't buy into the PAK FA. This would open the Indian market for our products and EADS and UAC have already swapped shares.
The Karel Doorman is at least in theory capable of deploying troops, not fixed wing aircrafts. It's the same joint support ship idea Canada toyed with. The current German Einsatzgruppenversorger number 3, way too much for our coastal navy, but do have some capability to help evacuating our citizens worldwide because in prior cases we had to ask the mighty Dutch navy for help.
The problem with the German budget is that we try to get debt-free and thus reduce expenditure while raising taxes is deeply unpopular. Military expenditure is seen as a luxury in this context because neither the Poles nor the French threaten us. I'm very much in favour of doing some small transnational cooperations for specific objectives. The three Einsatzgruppenversorger are a joint project with Denmark and can be leased by other European nations. It would be a good idea to have the Baltic states, Poland and their defense industry partner Czechia, Denmark and Germany who all already have one naval command for defending the Baltic Sea join together and have some LPD capability they can deploy in their salty fresh water lake and use to save their citizens globally or help during disasters in order to create good vibes. A Canberra-class would be just fine, but after our commite worked on the LPD, it turned into this Einsatzgruppenversorger that can support more than one utility helicopter. As mentioned above, we Germans are masters at botched carrier attempts.
Btw. who invested into the JSF and doesn't sink money into a deep hole that was suddenly too much for the Dutch leading to a JSF controversy. Perhaps someone can explain me why we don't buy into the PAK FA. This would open the Indian market for our products and EADS and UAC have already swapped shares.
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
Re: Aircraft Carriers
If Japan can build the DDH Hyuga Class for it's Maritime Self-Defense Force, so can Germany for its navy, and I don't think it will take decades either.
If Japan can build the DDH Hyuga Class for it's Maritime Self-Defense Force, so can Germany for its navy, and I don't think it will take decades either.
Re: Aircraft Carriers
Less and less doubt as to what they will be used for IMHO. Here's my concept pic:
And Japan is building two larger carriers, the 22DDH, which will be much larger than the Hyuga. The first one of those should launch next year.
Less and less doubt as to what they will be used for IMHO. Here's my concept pic:
Last edited:
- Status