fftopicYou are excused only on the basis that you don't make it through to the finals.:smash:duel:flame:finger:nutkick
Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?
- Thread starter levathan
- Start date
fftopicYou are excused only on the basis that you don't make it through to the finals.:smash:duel:flame:finger:nutkickI often think that because Australia lacks any serious security threat that lets our minds wonder and imagination sets in. All that is written and discussed about some nation threatening our offshore regions is plain crazy. The last thing China and India want is to interfere with the export of Australian resources. They are two of the top five customers!
OH NO! Don't forget about the evils of Malaysia and Indonesia!!! :laugh
Dream on. But going on past performances we'll wait and see. Would have been better if the Spring Boks had won because they have one dimensional game. Very physical and hard bit still one dimensional. Poms are still blaming the ball.
fftopic:duel:fly:duel:soldier:sniper:drunk1
Last edited:
More likely are countries plunging into chaos,collapsing or being hit with a natural/financial/resource disaster.. With refugees, armed militants, pirates, human right abuses etc.
Now China and/or India may have an interest in that happening, if they can secure a resource deal with an intrim government, africa has showed they don't mind dealing in the political bad lands to make business. Its not that big a step to make those bad lands happen for your own gain.
Now China and/or India may have an interest in that happening, if they can secure a resource deal with an intrim government, africa has showed they don't mind dealing in the political bad lands to make business. Its not that big a step to make those bad lands happen for your own gain.
MichaelVail
New Member
Japan and India should be included. India has skirmishes with the Chinese military in Kashmir at times and Japan needs to be wary of North Korea and China. I am sure both will be NATO members eventually.
Why would Japan & India want to be NATO members? NATO is an Eurocentric organisation. I suggest you read the previous posts in this thread. I think most of the pros and cons will have been covered. NATO had trouble running an op across the puddle from it (Libya) so how do you think they would go operating in the Pacific with 1 and a bit carriers (I'm deliberately leaving out the US) plus all the logistical issues that arise operating very far from home with hostile forces in between? There are already treaties between the US and Japan and between the US, Australia and NZ.plus the FPDA. What would really give China a bit of a headache was if NATO invited Russia to join it as a full member, then NATO would extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. With all the resources like gold, oil, diamonds etc that exist in Siberia, it would be little wonder if Beijing hasn't looked north and wondered if it could invade and take. Its a big prize in anybody's language.
1 CTOL, 3 STOVL currently, plus 1 STOVL constrained to operating as an LPH through lack of fighters.
What did you count to get one and a bit?
And what did you count Swerve?Italy (2)
-Giuseppe Garibaldi (551): 14,000 ton Italian STOVL carrier, commissioned in 1985.
-Cavour (550): 27,000 ton Italian STOVL carrier, commissioned in 2008.
Spain (2)
-Principe de Asturias (R11): 17,200 ton STOVL carrier, commissioned in 1988.
-Juan Carlos I (L61): 27,000 ton, launched in 2008, commissioned 30 September 2010.
United Kingdom (1)
-HMS Illustrious: 22,000 ton STOVL carrier, commissioned in 1982. Originally there were three of her class but the other two have since been retired. Regular RN fixed wing aircraft carrier operations ended after first Sea Harrier and then Harrier fighters were retired as a cost saving measure.
France (1)
-Charles de Gaulle (R 91): 42,000 ton nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, commissioned in 2001.
So Europe has 6 carriers not 5 or 1 and a bit...
There is very good reason this ship class is counted as an LHD and not a carrier. Because even in an all Harrier/F-35 carrier mode it is speed limited to 21 knots. A carrier requires at least 27 knots to maintain fleet speed. Of course the capability of an LHD needs to be assessed in such a fleet vs fleet assessment but it won't be in the same formation as the real carriers.
-Juan Carlos I (L61): 27,000 ton, launched in 2008, commissioned 30 September 2010.
Charles De Gaulle from France, the possibility of one from Spain - and Italy wouldn't be able to afford to sail her carriers at the moment. I'm being fairly brutal. So I'll agree to 2 and a half if Italy can afford to sail one. The half carrier is allowing for political meanderings over whether or not to send one all the way to the Pacific or whether or not to participate. There won't be a Pommy carrier for the next 8 years which is a real hole in NATO naval capability. The US are reducing their CVNs by one.
Well, the guys who operate this ship, the AE, those who really "know", consider that this ship can be configured to operate in the same way that PdA does, carrying the same amount of Harriers and Helos that the PdA normally operates and carrying the same amount of aviation fuel and ordinance (rougthly).
But lets consider what makes an aircraft carrier... I would say that you need a platform to operate from (ship) and... yes, you may also need some aircrafts, in order to operate your "aircraft" carrier, what would you consider a more critical factor?? having something to actually fly and shoot stuff from your ship... or being quick?
If we are to not count some ship I consider that lacking actual aircraft to fly from your carrier is a waaaaay more critical issue than being only capable of 21knots, so lets just kick the UK out and we end up with 5 european carriers.
:if so then we can remove 1 Spanish and 1 Italian carrier aswel, seeing both only have enough harriers for a full complement on 1 shipIf we are to not count some ship I consider that lacking actual aircraft to fly from your carrier is a waaaaay more critical issue than being only capable of 21knots, so lets just kick the UK out and we end up with 5 european carriers.
Spain: 16 harriers + 1 trainer
Italy: 14 harriers + 2 trainers
thats a total of 3 carriers
with de Gaulle being broken 50% of the time that leaves 2 & 1/2
I dont know how the italians manage their stuff, but I do know that the normal nurmber of Harriers aboard R-11 is 8 to 12, plus -/+12 helos, I know that operating 8 Harriers from each ship would be less than ideal, but as for possible...yes it is possible.
But ok, lets assume that Spain and Italy have both only 1 carrier each and that the CdG is dead half of the time, that is 2 & 1/2 but, I can imagine that Spain and Italy could operate the surplus Harriers from the HMS Illustrious, so we end up with a broken nuclear-leaking CATOBAR counting for 1/2 and 3 STOVL, that leaves 3 & 1/2
And it seems that not counting the USN, the europeans do have the biggest, more modern and best equipped carrier fleet out there
nfloorl:Okay, if one follows that standpoint, who is the threat to Spain, or Italy, or France for that matter?
All those nations have carriers, yet none of them has had any real threat that requires a carrier since WW2. And Britain, since the Iron Curtain came down, does not have a real threat from the now non-existent USSR, or Russia as it is today.
Surely it is the deterrant value of a carrier and its ability to project aircraft into an area that needs coverage, like Iraq for example. Oz could have contributed much more to that conflict, for instance, if we had had a carrier of our own.
With the Arab Spring, we have Libya at the moment, needing air coverage, and who knows how many other States, already in a destabilized havoc right now, will ask for such support? The Arabs are showing they want air support, not troupes on the ground, so aircraft carriers are becoming more necessary.
Then there are future possible destabilizations in our locale; East Timor needed military interdiction, and if anyone would care, West Papuans have needed help for many years, since it was annexed by Indo in fact, due to the Indo military actions taken there...
So, I am of the opinion that we do need fixed wing able aircraft carriers, obviously (cost and manning wise) of a much smaller size than USA's super carriers. The Canberra Class would be the way to go, would it not?
Last edited:
Okay, so say I am a dictator in the Middle East/North Africa and I have been exerting my authority... "Oh no the Spanish/Italian carrier with 8 aircraft is soooo scary!!" or how about I'm the Asian dictator "Ooohh no the Australian makeshift carrier from an LHD is soooooo scary.. with a total of 6 hypothetical F-35Bs."
Your statement, for want of a more apt description, does not address the issue at hand, and reveals your juvenile nature.
I'm not being rude to you, so start behaving in a more adult manner.
No, I am pointing out in a simplified manner that light carriers can hardly be called a deterrent. I was not trying to insult you or even attack you personally. Just showing as said before what a potential enemy would think in a simplified manner at such a force.
Okay, I accept that you did not mean to be offensive, but you expressed yourself a little too bluntly.
However, I am of the opinion that we need small carriers, I am not suggesting they are going to take over the world...but contribute to the balance of power in our region, supporting our Allies, as our region is rapidly changing, with China's huge blue water build up and port developments. An American think tank member, on international policy etc, came to Sydney Uni a few years back, and he explained that we, and the US, need to keep abreast of and match China's increasing naval influence in our region.
cheers
Illustrious has no fixed-wing aircraft. Mentioned in my count. Juan Carlos is an LHD which will only operate as a auxiliary carrier when the main carrier is in refit or repair. deliberately excluded from my count.
Italy (2)
-Giuseppe Garibaldi (551): 14,000 ton Italian STOVL carrier, commissioned in 1985.
-Cavour (550): 27,000 ton Italian STOVL carrier, commissioned in 2008.
Spain (2)
-Principe de Asturias (R11): 17,200 ton STOVL carrier, commissioned in 1988.
-Juan Carlos I (L61): 27,000 ton, launched in 2008, commissioned 30 September 2010.
United Kingdom (1)
-HMS Illustrious: 22,000 ton STOVL carrier, commissioned in 1982. Originally there were three of her class but the other two have since been retired. Regular RN fixed wing aircraft carrier operations ended after first Sea Harrier and then Harrier fighters were retired as a cost saving measure.
France (1)
-Charles de Gaulle (R 91): 42,000 ton nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, commissioned in 2001.
So Europe has 6 carriers not 5 or 1 and a bit...