Do you think they will restart that review in to carriers again that looks at possibly of limiting the Ford class to 4 and developing a fleet carrier design.
Aircraft Carriers III
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Mr T
Senior Member
It's quite possible that Bloomberg is overstating the problem simply because they've only heard bits and pieces. Like when the Type 45 destroyer was being labelled as "immobile" because of issues regarding the propulsion system long after an interim solution had been found to let them deploy again.
Well the Chinese government would never admit if they couldn't get EMALS working properly and had missed a deadline to get it operational. There's little transparency over the PLA so who knows.
Intrepid
Major
Large economies with nuclear weapons and fixed wing aircraft carrier ambitions:
I guess, in thirty years China operates more aircraft carriers than the USA. Only the technical development of new weapons like autonomous vehicles under water, on the surface or in the air and other stuff may change the picture.
And now let's be excited to see the development of 003 into a full-blown conventionally powerd aircraft carrier.
I guess, in thirty years China operates more aircraft carriers than the USA. Only the technical development of new weapons like autonomous vehicles under water, on the surface or in the air and other stuff may change the picture.
And now let's be excited to see the development of 003 into a full-blown conventionally powerd aircraft carrier.
South Korea is exploring and investing in carrier options as well. More seriously than Turkey, I'd say.
Also, talking about just ambition, Brazil definitely has ambition to operate carriers. Their lack of money forced them to get rid of their carrier, and nothing else. So by 2050 it's perfectly possible they will be once again operating a carrier. Indonesia too might join that club by 2050. If indeed it manages to be so successful economically as the table projects. After all, its an island nation, covering a huge territory - it could be better served by a carrier than some of the other countries on the list.
Also, talking about just ambition, Brazil definitely has ambition to operate carriers. Their lack of money forced them to get rid of their carrier, and nothing else. So by 2050 it's perfectly possible they will be once again operating a carrier. Indonesia too might join that club by 2050. If indeed it manages to be so successful economically as the table projects. After all, its an island nation, covering a huge territory - it could be better served by a carrier than some of the other countries on the list.
Off topic - but what makes you think Russia can operate 4 supercarriers lol? Their economy is in the shitters and the UK, with almost twice the GDP, struggles to afford more than 2 STOBAR carriers.
Intrepid
Major
In the past 20 years they spent not enough money to keep at least one airwing current. I guess they have no need for carriers.
There is a chance two LHDs currently in construction will actually end up being STOBAR hybrids.
At least some rumor activity suggests it may be the case.
The Russian navy is sort of a perfect example of Mahanian theory - it's up to the person in charge.
No lasting consensus - no lasting policy.
Unlike the UK, Russia(or China, for the matter) for the large part procures its military equipment domestically.
US $ GDP isn't indicative here, PPP is.