Project Canada wrote:
Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.
They only need handful of aircraft carriers. Better to co-produce them and use money and time for ships they need in bigger numbers.
Minimal number of carriers to have operational consistency is 3, one deployed, one in docks, one on overhaul. Criteria which at this moment only US fulfils, France fills the gap with Mistrals atm, UK is building carriers and Roterdams and Italy well.... Italy.
Yes, Italy : two harrier capable carriers (only western europe Navy having it), three San Marco landing craft than operate a Ch-47 and a Aw-101 together , frigates able to carry a AW-101 and a N-90, twelve 4500 ton heavy armed OPV and a 20000 LPD in order actually.
So thank you, we are just fine there with the our fleet.
For news about your's, have I to call 00385, 00386 or 00382?
"Harrier capable carriers" - nice oxymoron. At this moment Harriers are adequate aircraft as much as Gazelle is adequate as gunship helicopter.
San Marco class does not exist, you wanted to say San Giorgio class, one of which is named San Marco.
However i was refering to the fact no matter what Italians operated they will make it useless as shown by already established legendary tradition of Italian armed forces, incapable of fighitng for anything except worldwide crusade aganist ketchup spread on pizza.
You could have Ford class carriers we would still laugh at Italians.
There's nothing wrong with Italian Navy kit, in fact they're doing very well in that department.
Concerning pizzas, I bet Kuz's pizza smoker is superior indeed.
Kuz's has a pelmeni smoker get it right. SU-33s and MIG-29Ks as well as KA-52Ks like to hang out and eat at the Kuz's shop. Way better than Harriers IMO.
Comparing the needs of Russian and Italian expeditionary groups will most definitely give different answers.
Both have different missions and potential threat environments. One is still lagging at its respective field. Guess which one.
Not so much different indeed, both Italian and Russian share some common trait when it come to design military ships, they both have a lot of weapons on board, we both have a great role left for conventional artillery onboard, long range antiship missiles and heavy torpedo on frigateseven external look of ships is somewhat similar.
Given we are talking about a carrier in this thread, let's just compare Vittorio Veneto and Garibaldi with Moska and Kiev classes on that regard.
Certainly sheer dimension were different but operative concepts they stemmed forth made surely more akin one another than to the other Nato harrier carriers.
About that denomination, Cavour actually operate with them but is obviously designed around F-35B while Garibaldi will stay operative as an air assault helo carrier until the new landing ship would be ready, so we would have no lack of capability and in the same time we would build sorely needed OPV, each one armed like a pair of other NATO navye's frigates (or ten LCS) obviously.
Now, I leave to prepare for the 4th november celebration, because you know, maybe not so often but sometimes also we won.