Depends entirely on the strength of the opposition. France, Italy, Spain, India, Brazil, Russia & Thailand all have shipboard fighters - though the operational status of the Thai ones is doubtful, & the Russians don't do many operations at sea. Quite a few countries could deploy amphibious ships with embarked armed helicopters.fylr71 said:which countries besides the us and Britain could currently undertake a falklands type operation
Yep and a lot would depend on the opposition. Currently the Argentinian Navy is in a sorry state because of repeated budget cuts, and the best that the Air Force has... is still the same Mirage III that were flying 24 years ago.swerve said:Depends entirely on the strength of the opposition. France, Italy, Spain, India, Brazil, Russia & Thailand all have shipboard fighters - though the operational status of the Thai ones is doubtful, & the Russians don't do many operations at sea. Quite a few countries could deploy amphibious ships with embarked armed helicopters.
... and our great joint Italian & French FREMM frigates entering service as of 2009 (sea trials)DoC_FouALieR said:France, that is sure (a bit subjective beacause it is my country ;-)!).
We have an aircraft carrier with Rafale fighters onboard (a new one is planned), we have two "big" amphibious ships that can carry attack and transport helicopters and 1/3 of an armored division. Plus two others amphibious ship for the complement.
New AA frigates with Aster missiles come in service next year, and we can deployed SSNs of course.
Could you please remind me what happened in Albania ?isthvan said:Well based on current situation and not future there are only few navies that could do that kind of operation... UK could still manage that but without Sea Harriers task could be little harder; France has lots of experience whit smaller scale operations in Africa and they could probably do it without to much problems; Italy whit two smaller carriers and San Giorgio amphibious ships could also do such operation (hopefully without accidents like in Albania), Spain and Russia if Ivan Rogov class and Kuznietsov would spend some time at see now an then…
I doubt that someone else could pull that kind of operation because here are crucial logistics capabilities like fleet replenishment at see, munitions transport, enough helicopters etc.
It is not enough joust having carrier, modern destroyers and other fancy toys, what counts are logistics and training…
Ah yes you are right. The Vittorio Veneto was an old missile cruiser with steam propulsion and a dangerously big draught that made it insuitable to amphibious operations. Back then we only had one carrier and we needed the helo platform aft of the Veneto (6 helos could be carried), so we took the risk nevertheless.isthvan said:Victorio Veneto(IIRC) was stranded a shore by the coast of Albania...
By the end of the year, I think.By the way, when is the Rafale F2 (air-to-ground variant) entering service on the De Gaulle ? The Super Etendards are becoming a bit old
Bien sûr, vous disiez ca aussi pour l'Euro 2000, et vous y aviez cru jusqu'au bout,... mais en fait non! Mais bon je ne m'intéresse pas trop au foot.PS : prestation sublime de la France hier soir ! Avec un peu de chances on se refait un France-Italie en finale, même si ce coup-ci on vous laisse pas gagner
NZLAV said:Russia is building a new carrier based on the Nimitz so i guess they could. Haha as of 2007 even NZ could do an amphibious assault with their new MRV(help from oz will be needed with air cover though)
Where did you get this news on a carrier being built for Russia ??NZLAV said:Russia is building a new carrier based on the Nimitz so i guess they could. Haha as of 2007 even NZ could do an amphibious assault with their new MRV(help from oz will be needed with air cover though)
Big-E said:I know you said currently but when India gets ex Gorshkov she will be able to do such an operation. It might be possible to do now with logistics.
But the UK did it in 1982 without a single LHD or LPD, & two STOVL-only carriers with a combined tonnage only slightly greater than Gorshkov. Our amphibious capability consisted of a few traditional LSTs, with no dock & no helicopter carrying capacity, & quite small. The troops & their supplies were mostly carried in STUFT, civilian vessels, some of which had hastily improvised helicopter landing pads bolted on. And we won, thus proving that such ships are not necessary for such an operation. Though they'd have made it easier.fylr71 said:Its a good thought, I have often wondered about the capabilities of the Indian Navy to project power but even with Gorshkov and the air defense ship (40, 000 ton medium carrier) , India will still lack the LHD type ships which can carry helicopters and large marine detatchments. Its kind of surprising considering India's desire to achieve a true blue water navy and with all of the new ships being built or planned that an LHD is not on the drawing board.
Hmm I beg to differ on one point : the Royal Navy had 2 LPDs during the Falklands war, and very good ones : Fearless and Intrepid. 17,000 ton LPDs commissioned at the end of the '60s (so almost new in 1982), with 4 LCU, 4 LCVP, 15 MBTs, 400 troops EACH ... The platform aft had space for 4 Sea Kings.swerve said:But the UK did it in 1982 without a single LHD or LPD, & two STOVL-only carriers with a combined tonnage only slightly greater than Gorshkov. Our amphibious capability consisted of a few traditional LSTs, with no dock & no helicopter carrying capacity, & quite small. The troops & their supplies were mostly carried in STUFT, civilian vessels, some of which had hastily improvised helicopter landing pads bolted on. And we won, thus proving that such ships are not necessary for such an operation. Though they'd have made it easier.
India now has an amphibious capacity not much less than what the RN had in 1982, & it will soon be greater, when the ex-USS Trenton enters service. The 4 Magar-class LSTs are very similar to - indeed, based on - the RNs landing ships of 1982. The Polnocnys would struggle over such distances, & in the S. Atlantic weather, but for a similar operation closer to home would be very useful. Underway oilers can - and have been - very quickly rigged from civilian tankers. So, right now the IN could do a smaller-scale version, & when the former Trenton & Vikramaditya are in service, along with the 5th Magar LST, should be able to do something bigger.
Bugger. I forgot about them. Yes, quite an addition to the 6 Round Tables. Fearless commissioned 1965, so 17 years old. So, we had 6 landing ships similar to the 5 India is now building the last of, & two 11000 ton LPDs. So a bit more than India will have when their ex-USN LPD (bigger than our old ones) enters service, but less embarked aviation than India will have when Vikramaditya is in service, & a lot less than when the 1st ADS joins the fleet.contedicavour said:Hmm I beg to differ on one point : the Royal Navy had 2 LPDs during the Falklands war, and very good ones : Fearless and Intrepid. 17,000 ton LPDs commissioned at the end of the '60s (so almost new in 1982), with 4 LCU, 4 LCVP, 15 MBTs, 400 troops EACH ... The platform aft had space for 4 Sea Kings.
Without these 2 LPDs, the RN could not have fought at the Falklands.
cheers