Australia will also have a reasonable amphibious capability when the new LHDs (Spanish Navantia or French Mistral type) come on line. See earlier thread 'Amphibious ships and air power in Naval Forces'.
New Italian aircraft carrier ready to take the sea!!
- Thread starter Mangusta CBT
- Start date
Off hand I dont know. But your probably right and in this respect Cavour is almost unique, excepting the USN, tho I seem to remember the Koreans having amphib in their helicopter carriers. Most of the others have amphib assets separate from their carriers. America is unique in that we have an awful lot of both.
The F-35 is going to bring a lot more range and bang to the Cavour. I'll bet they are looking forward to that system getting to them.
I thought that was deleted from the NUM design long ago? Can't find any trace of it on the Marina Militare website, or any other recent description of Cavour.
http://www.marina.difesa.it/programmi/portaerei.htm
The amphibious capability I can see is as an LPH, or ro-ro via her rear & side loading ramps.
Mistral, Tonnerre, Juan Carlos I (building), Dokdo, & the Osumi class all have through decks & floodable wells, as will the new Ozzie LHDs. But of those, only Juan Carlos I is intended to carry VSTOL aircraft, though the others could, if they had to. I don't include the Italian San Giorgios, because although they have a through deck & floodable dock, they're too small.
The UK has an LPH (flat-top, no well), HMS Ocean, which could carry STOVLs at a pinch, but not very well, & Ark Royal is currently operating in the LPH role. But the Ark is less useful for amphibious ops than Cavour, lacking the big loading ramps & easy access.
So . . . . yes, Cavour is unique. But so is Juan Carlos. And I think the latter is the ship which actually does (or will, when she's finished) what you're talking about.
Mangusta CBT
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #26
The amphibious capability of Cavour is little face the amphibious capability of spanish BPE.
Cavour primary role is to operate as stovl aircraft carrier and I bet she will serves very well in this role.
Bpe primary role is to operate for amphibious operations and the capability as aircraft carrier are limited. When operating as CV the BPE displaces 24000tons instead of 27000tons of amphibious mode.
Cavour primary role is to operate as stovl aircraft carrier and I bet she will serves very well in this role.
Bpe primary role is to operate for amphibious operations and the capability as aircraft carrier are limited. When operating as CV the BPE displaces 24000tons instead of 27000tons of amphibious mode.
Last edited:
Mangusta CBT
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #28
In fact Cavour have an avionics of first level for the aircraft carrier main role (and flag ship), BPE have the avionics of an OPV, an economics ferry with a big hangar.
I have yet to see anything but simulations of the BPE. The Cavour sacrifices some amphib ability but it sports a greater air wing than the BPE should handle.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Sometime well into next decade, I would have thought.
Coz she's still building. Launch of Juan Carlos I is scheduled for 30-11-2007. Being built in sections at two yards, IIRC, & they're not ready to be brought together yet.
Some? Not having a dock is a big sacrifice of amphibious ability. But yes, Cavour should be superior as a carrier. Slightly bigger than JC & a lot faster. 18 metres more flight deck & an extra 10 knots into the wind must be worth some payload.
Dear Mangusta CBT.Mangusta CBT said:
I would like see a LHD with the electronic/sensor pack of a OPV on any Navy, seriously, that would be funny...
Well, I don't know what you consider OPV electronics worth, but the LHD "Juan Carlos I" will have some things that I really think are very far of OPV Level.
And this is very important because the Juan Carlos I, will be the Spanish Navy Flagship whenever the R-11 Príncipe de Asturias remains un-operative (for refits or long time overhauls). Also she must have the capacity to command, control and supervise the amphibious operations carried out by the Spanish Projection Group (1 V/STOVL Carrier + 1 LHD + 2 LPD + 2 LST [while those remains in active] + Escorts & Support Vessels). The JCI should be on the line of the L-52 Castilla (NATO NRF (M) HQ) over C&C facilities but you know us, the spaniards always imagining things...
Some confirmed combat sensor systems being:
· The Radar Indra Lanza N 3D (Tridimensional Radar of L-band for vigilance, Air Warning & Control, and auto-defense purposes).
· LPI (Low Probability of Interception) Helicopter Control Radar.
· Proximity Aproximation Radar.
· Electro-optic Vigilance Systems.
· Indra ESM Comm System for emissions Interception & Monitorization.
· ESM/ECM Systems for Antimissile purpose (Space & Weight Reserve)
· IFF Systems.
· Secure Tactic Datalinks (Link 11, 16 y 22) Systems of Rohde & Swartz.
· SECOMSAT Communications Systems.
Navigational systems confirmed:
· LPI (Low Probability of Interception) Navigational Radar.
· Navigational System with GPS/GALILEO Geopositional Global Sistems full integrated.
· Inertial Navigation System, Weather Sensors, etc...
· Navigational Data Distributor System
· Automatic Identification System.
· ECDIS System.
And with facilities for Amphibious Command Staff over a hundred, but you know all OPVs have it, right...
So... A little more than OPV electronics, I think.
* * * * *
swerve & Big-E.
Yeah, not very abundant but some photos of the modules in the Shipyards of Navantia are already in the web.swerve said:
Photos by El_bendito (September 2006).
http://img175.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bpe1rr1.jpg
http://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bpe2rs8.jpg
http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bpe3ed2.jpg
http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bpe4nj4.jpg
From RevistaNaval.com
http://www.revistanaval.com/imaxes/bpe-juan-carlos-i-01.jpg
A pair of thoughts.
Lately, I found many times, in forums like this, the almost obsessive tendency to compare the NUM Cavour with the BPE Juan Carlos I, and sincerely I don't understand it.
This is a matter of very different ships, conceived and designed for purpouses very different and therefore dedicate us to compare one with the other is like to compare pears with oranges. Each one of us have our favorites, we like more one fruit or another but both are obviously a different thing, comparisons between them are IMO a waste of time.
In the case of the BPE Juan Carlos I, we are talking of a LHD designed to operate always inside a group of force projection or an amphibious tasks force for humanitarian or relief missions. For that reason their limitations in velocity, fixed-wing air capacity, the disposition of a dock for LCMs, LCACs, etc... be the ones that are.
On the other hand we have the Cavour that was conceived AFAIK as a STOVL Aircraft Carrier with marginal amphibious capacity, and whose primary role is to act as nucleum of an Aircraft Carrier Tasks Force and vector of air-sea projection independently or in support for an Anfibious Task Group. From there its characteristics optimized to that role. Something that the BPE not. Similarly, restrict the operation of the Cavour to be integrated inside an amphibious group with slow (and mainly defenseless ships), where its greater speed would be wasteful and their capacity of tactical independence would be seriously limited.
I understand comparisons between the Spanish BPE and French Mistral, both are LHDs in the same league (excluding the sky-jump detail) with some diferences but in the core of their desings the same or very similar mission and objectives in their conceptions.
The fixed wing capacity of the BPE was a particular requeriment of the Spanish Navy derived of our permanent need for a STOVL aviation vector available. Given that, the Spanish Navy accord to postpone its decision about the replacement of the R-11 Principe de Asturias (PdA), and inmersed in the dilemma F-35C or F-35B, the long mid life update and refit that awaits to the PdA, and the more than debatable capacity of the R-11 for the F-35B. The Spanish Navy decided for including in its requests to Navantia the sky-jump in the BPE. That we must recall it wasn't present in the first designs. For that IMO is not a mater of second aircraft carrier sought (like was in the Italian case) but a LHD that allow to the Navy step with the BPE in the occasions when or where the PdA was unavailable to be deployed and we needed a naval fixed-wing vector for air support. And, at the same time secure a stop-gap measure while the future of the STOVL version (B) of the F-35 is clarified over the next few years.
Other important detail to this was the official dissolution of the Alpha Group (The Spanish Aircraft Carrier Task Group) and the Delta Group (Spanish Amphibious Task Group) to form a new single tactical force projection unit, the Group of Projection.
Lately, I found many times, in forums like this, the almost obsessive tendency to compare the NUM Cavour with the BPE Juan Carlos I, and sincerely I don't understand it.
This is a matter of very different ships, conceived and designed for purpouses very different and therefore dedicate us to compare one with the other is like to compare pears with oranges. Each one of us have our favorites, we like more one fruit or another but both are obviously a different thing, comparisons between them are IMO a waste of time.
In the case of the BPE Juan Carlos I, we are talking of a LHD designed to operate always inside a group of force projection or an amphibious tasks force for humanitarian or relief missions. For that reason their limitations in velocity, fixed-wing air capacity, the disposition of a dock for LCMs, LCACs, etc... be the ones that are.
On the other hand we have the Cavour that was conceived AFAIK as a STOVL Aircraft Carrier with marginal amphibious capacity, and whose primary role is to act as nucleum of an Aircraft Carrier Tasks Force and vector of air-sea projection independently or in support for an Anfibious Task Group. From there its characteristics optimized to that role. Something that the BPE not. Similarly, restrict the operation of the Cavour to be integrated inside an amphibious group with slow (and mainly defenseless ships), where its greater speed would be wasteful and their capacity of tactical independence would be seriously limited.
I understand comparisons between the Spanish BPE and French Mistral, both are LHDs in the same league (excluding the sky-jump detail) with some diferences but in the core of their desings the same or very similar mission and objectives in their conceptions.
The fixed wing capacity of the BPE was a particular requeriment of the Spanish Navy derived of our permanent need for a STOVL aviation vector available. Given that, the Spanish Navy accord to postpone its decision about the replacement of the R-11 Principe de Asturias (PdA), and inmersed in the dilemma F-35C or F-35B, the long mid life update and refit that awaits to the PdA, and the more than debatable capacity of the R-11 for the F-35B. The Spanish Navy decided for including in its requests to Navantia the sky-jump in the BPE. That we must recall it wasn't present in the first designs. For that IMO is not a mater of second aircraft carrier sought (like was in the Italian case) but a LHD that allow to the Navy step with the BPE in the occasions when or where the PdA was unavailable to be deployed and we needed a naval fixed-wing vector for air support. And, at the same time secure a stop-gap measure while the future of the STOVL version (B) of the F-35 is clarified over the next few years.
Other important detail to this was the official dissolution of the Alpha Group (The Spanish Aircraft Carrier Task Group) and the Delta Group (Spanish Amphibious Task Group) to form a new single tactical force projection unit, the Group of Projection.
A pair of thoughts.
Lately, I found many times, in forums like this, the almost obsessive tendency to compare the NUM Cavour with the BPE Juan Carlos I, and sincerely I don't understand it.
This is a matter of very different ships, conceived and designed for purpouses very different and therefore dedicate us to compare one with the other is like to compare pears with oranges. Each one of us have our favorites, we like more one fruit or another but both are obviously a different thing, comparisons between them are IMO a waste of time.
In the case of the BPE Juan Carlos I, we are talking of a LHD designed to operate always inside a group of force projection or an amphibious tasks force for humanitarian or relief missions. For that reason their limitations in velocity, fixed-wing air capacity, the disposition of a dock for LCMs, LCACs, etc... be the ones that are.
On the other hand we have the Cavour that was conceived AFAIK as a STOVL Aircraft Carrier with marginal amphibious capacity, and whose primary role is to act as nucleum of an Aircraft Carrier Tasks Force and vector of air-sea projection independently or in support for an Anfibious Task Group. From there its characteristics optimized to that role. Something that the BPE not. Similarly, restrict the operation of the Cavour to be integrated inside an amphibious group with slow (and mainly defenseless ships), where its greater speed would be wasteful and their capacity of tactical independence would be seriously limited.
I understand comparisons between the Spanish BPE and French Mistral, both are LHDs in the same league (excluding the sky-jump detail) with some diferences but in the core of their desings the same or very similar mission and objectives in their conceptions.
The fixed wing capacity of the BPE was a particular requeriment of the Spanish Navy derived of our permanent need for a STOVL aviation vector available. Given that, the Spanish Navy accord to postpone its decision about the replacement of the R-11 Principe de Asturias (PdA), and inmersed in the dilemma F-35C or F-35B, the long mid life update and refit that awaits to the PdA, and the more than debatable capacity of the R-11 for the F-35B. The Spanish Navy decided for including in its requests to Navantia the sky-jump in the BPE. That we must recall it wasn't present in the first designs. For that IMO is not a mater of second aircraft carrier sought (like was in the Italian case) but a LHD that allow to the Navy step with the BPE in the occasions when or where the PdA was unavailable to be deployed and we needed a naval fixed-wing vector for air support. And, at the same time secure a stop-gap measure while the future of the STOVL version (B) of the F-35 is clarified over the next few years.
Other important detail to this was the official dissolution of the Alpha Group (The Spanish Aircraft Carrier Task Group) and the Delta Group (Spanish Amphibious Task Group) to form a new single tactical force projection unit, the Group of Projection.
Exactly Gladius,
You explained wery well the situation.
Cavour and Bpe are not comparable.
Cavour is a stovl aircraft carrier designed and fitted to be strong, well armed and to operate his aircraft for long times and in difficult sea and weather conditions. The request of italian MoD to have a small amphibious capability (small rooms for 300 marines and nothing more
) will never be used and many people in MMI are thinking it was an error and a waste of space for the hangar.Bpe is a LPD/LHD with a sky-jump to operate some stovl aircrafts, but it is not an aircraft carrier.
It's correct to compare Bpe and Mistral, but not Cavour vs Bpe.
Last edited:
Mangusta CBT
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #35
This is very little in comparison to the Cavour avionics (1250 mq CIC), Cavour is also 3 x more expensive of BPE ... Cavour and Bpe are not comparable we can't compare an aircraft carrier with an LHD ... but BPE have great transport capability
I do beleive the italains have got this totally right, a good size with an effective capablity and a turely mulit-role vessel. Sorry, to be repeating what others have said, it would be great too see the italians purchase 2 of them, since the Gusseppi will retire mid-late next decade. Any one have a clue what the max number of F-35B's it can carry, or a wholeoy carrier configuration would look like ?
Thanks
During standard operations it can carry 12 F35b and 8 EH-101 without problems and having a lot of space for the crew to operate in 'confort'.
If required the number of JSF could reach 24. The problem is that MMI seems interested to buy a max of 20-22 F35B.
Thank you sir, looks like there is a lot of range with the numbers. Help me out here, I understand the america CVN's operate with fewer warplanes becuase its both more comfortable and efficent in terms of sortie rates due to less congession. So the 12 F35B/8 EH101's is the optimal mix ?
Nice ship, i would have been happy to see 4 of these in RN.
Be well
It is a very nice ship but the RN should keep hoping that the CVF get built as it will be a much better ship in terms of capability. Particulalry as the the design is adaptable to CTOL and STOLV operations.
Before I get howled down this is not in any way a slight against the Cavour rather a recognisiton that the CVF is a true aircraft carrier taht can operate a substancial air wing.
I totally agree with you, the CVF is better at the carrier end of things, What i liked about 4 plus Cavour was the flexibility a force of 4-5 units would have, i am sure there are some disadvantages to operating so many medium sized vessels, but with a need to power project in differeing ways the fleet flexbility does appeal to me. When one is multi-roled then you can not excell at everything.