Indian ADS aircraft carrier
- Thread starter P.A.F
- Start date
Except for Yorktown, Ark Royal, Akagi, Kaga, Eagle, Hornet, Lexington, Ryujo, Shokaku, Zuikakau, Amagi, Shinano, Shoho, Soryu, Taiho, Wasp, & Zuiho, and the light carriers Avenger, Block Island, Hermes, Langley & Princeton.peacelover said:
Maybe more. Torpedoes & bombs, torpedoes & bombs.
Carriers seem to be getting awfully popular lately, makes me wonder if the world is getting ready for something serious...
Italy has a new one, so does Spain, even Thailand has one, and Japan has three "Transports" that look an awful lot like the real thing. Is China serious about finishing thiers?
Italy has a new one, so does Spain, even Thailand has one, and Japan has three "Transports" that look an awful lot like the real thing. Is China serious about finishing thiers?
contedicavour
New Member
There are a lot of differences between the ships you mention. Thailand's is small and has never been seriously used, Spain's will be primarily a big LPH, Italy's a multi-purpose though still mid-sized escort carrier, China's Varyag could even become a big attack carrier if one day it is really refitted and made operational...Manfred said:
cheers
i believe the real aircraft carriers got to have a nuclear propulsion system,smaller carriers without nuclear propulsion suffer from limited range and endurance and also more frequent replenishments making them vulnerable,bigger carriers without nuclear propulsion are absolutely useless.
Sorry mate but I joust don’t agree that conventional super carriers are useless. If you have good support fleet your conventional carrier will be useful as any nuclear carrier. Yes conventional super carriers have some shortcomings but they are everything but useless. Naturally if you don’t have good and capable logistic fleet any carrier will be useless but so will be your entire fleet…aaaditya said:
For example USN used conventional powered carrier until recently (Forestall class, Kitty Hawk class)…
True. Nuclear-powered carriers don't need fuel for the engines, but they still need to replenish all the hotel stuff (food, water) & the supplies to keep the planes flying (fuel, weapons). The logistics requirements of a nuclear carrier aren't as much less as most people imagine.isthvan said:
Japans Oosumi "transports" are 14000 tons or so (full load) amphibious assault ships. They're not carriers. Hangar capacity is very limited (there's a floodable well deck in the stern taking up room, vehicle parking, troop accomodation . . . ). The flight deck is not well suited to rolling take-offs - the island is quite wide, leaving a pretty narrow deck alongside it.Manfred said:
A flat top doth not a carrier make - or the San Giorgio etc would be carriers.
If a conventional carrier was such a hassle the USN would have retired the Kitty Hawk years ago and replaced her with a Nimitz. With a capable logistic fleet a conventional carrier group can be just as effective as a nuclear group. Look at the Falklands War, the Royal Navy was able to support their entire invasion fleet quite well through the whole conflict.
Don't forget even nuclear carriers have to replenish their JP-8 supplies so a conventional can bring generator fuel on board at the same time of taking on JP-8.
Don't forget even nuclear carriers have to replenish their JP-8 supplies so a conventional can bring generator fuel on board at the same time of taking on JP-8.
Swerve said:
Japans Oosumi "transports" are 14000 tons or so (full load) amphibious assault ships. They're not carriers. Hangar capacity is very limited (there's a floodable well deck in the stern taking up room, vehicle parking, troop accomodation . . . ). The flight deck is not well suited to rolling take-offs - the island is quite wide, leaving a pretty narrow deck alongside it.
Yes, I know, but the bow has an unfinished look, as if they plan to put a ski-jump there, and if the ship is modular, it can be re-configured with hangars... still small ones... your probably right.
The thing is, I just wondering why carriers are becoming more wide spread since the end of the Cold War,, instead of rarer. Have new theories on the need for such things come out, or is this just a reflection of increasing world-wide prosperity and affluence?
Japans Oosumi "transports" are 14000 tons or so (full load) amphibious assault ships. They're not carriers. Hangar capacity is very limited (there's a floodable well deck in the stern taking up room, vehicle parking, troop accomodation . . . ). The flight deck is not well suited to rolling take-offs - the island is quite wide, leaving a pretty narrow deck alongside it.
Yes, I know, but the bow has an unfinished look, as if they plan to put a ski-jump there, and if the ship is modular, it can be re-configured with hangars... still small ones... your probably right.
The thing is, I just wondering why carriers are becoming more wide spread since the end of the Cold War,, instead of rarer. Have new theories on the need for such things come out, or is this just a reflection of increasing world-wide prosperity and affluence?
contedicavour
New Member
I would say it is LPHs or LPDHs that are springing up everywhere in numbers nobody would have dreamed of at the end of the Cold War.Manfred said:
Carrier numbers are still pretty comparable with what existed at the end of the 1980s.
cheers
Modifying the 16DDHs for STOVL operations would make more sense, but I think it would be much more practical, & not much slower, to build a dedicated carrier.Manfred said:
The 16DDH ships now building might be seen as an intermediate step towards that. Bigger than the Oosumis, no amphibious capability cutting into the aviation space (though the VLS battery & command suite take up some space), longer deck, etc. They could, at a pinch, operate a few STOVL fighters, though they're too small for F-35B operations to make sense, except as an emergency back-up or special mission. However, building those & the Oosumis means Japanese shipyards & the JMSDF now know a a lot more about flat-deck operations & construction than they did a few years ago. A real carrier has become less difficult for them to build & operate.
But I agree with CdC. Amphibious flat-tops are the big growth area. Countries with new carriers (Italy in the 1980s, Thailand) are balanced out by countries which have given them up (Argentina, Australia). But the UK, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, France & Spain have built, or are building, LPHs or LHDs, not having had any before*, & Australia is currently deciding between two competing LHD designs.
More countries are building or buying LPDs, as well. Some (e.g. Spain, India) are replacing or supplementing LST/LSLs with larger LPDs, but others (Netherlands, Portugal) have never operated similar ships before.
*The UK operated old light carriers as improvised LPHs in the 1960s, but retired them long ago. Ocean is the first British purpose-built amphibious flat-top.
Last edited:
contedicavour
New Member
Chances are Japan already has plans for an extended 16DDH design the moment PLAN declares Varyag refitted for operational service...swerve said:
cheers
i think they should retain the vls ,despite the presence of airdefence escorts ,i believe a vls is a must for an aircraft carrier ,particularly if it is a principal surface combatant.swerve said:50% more tonnage, with engines to match. Add ski-jump. Delete VLS (keep CIWS). Make both lifts the size of the larger one. Preferably, move them to deck edge. Stronger deck.
Whaddya get? Something rather like Cavour.
iam talking about aircraft carriers in general,and not us or rn aircraft carriers in particular,usa and rn have some of the best air defence escorts ,these are very expensive,and countries like india ,russia and china cannot afford such ultra high capability vessels in such large numbers,also i think it would be better for aircraft carriers to be equipped with air defence missiles particularly if there is a threat of the carrier group coming under mass cruise missile attack.swerve said: